It's probably O.K. to grasp a person handed that kind of panic and stress is not at her best.

Trying to make fun of her is a really bad idea.

That's a question I'd like an answer to as would any reasonable person.

I'd imagine she's pleading with him not to get out of the car.

I strongly suspect she was telling him not to start the car and take off.

She can very clearly be heard telling the cops he didn't have a gun, he was out there with his PDA and waiting for medication he had just taken to work.

The tragedy of this is that the woman was simply not heard. Black people are tuned out by all sorts of authorities. Had they heard what she was saying, they might have been able to de escalate the situation.

White folks are usually listened to. Black folks aren't.

That's the more important issue than continually trying to parse the meaning of the question she asked. The police had all the resources in place to descalate this situation and chose not to do so. And this is the latest in a long line of police not listening to Black families

How do we know he had a gun?

Later, in court, they can argue the same thing.

It, btw, is not necessary for the gun to actually exist anywhere outside of the officer's mind.

They just have to convince a jury that has been trained for years to acquiesce to authority or face consequences.

It's called covering your ass.

According to the initial accounts from the police, when do they claim he had the gun? The additional comments after they saw the tape from the mayor & chief sound like it's at least not clear he pointed the gun at anyone or when they think he was holding the gun. The other thing that bothers me is if he did indeed have a gun, so what. What was he doing that made the police think they had to do anything. If it was just the sight of a gun in his possession I don't believe the police can interfere with him just based on seeing a gun.

they just need to think he does.

Then later, if they have to, they can convince a trained jury.

She knew about all the other black men murdered by cops, so she probably didn't want her husband to be the next one. Sadly, he was.

so the police wouldn't break the windows. I think when she was saying "Don't do it" she was telling the police to not shoot him.

They were there to arrest somebody else. That is why there were multiple cops. I'm not covering for the cops, but these are obvious questions that are unanswered by the video or anybody else on here.

Why fuck with him to begin with??? If you want to question shit....question everything

They were after somebody else. Why were they messing with this guy.

One that, like many others, the video doesn't answer.

Most will assume answers that fit what they already know must be true, and that they knew was true even before they heard of this incident.

She is talking to her husband and the cops, she told the cops don't shoot him also.

Is this the comment you are referring to?

I watched the video on CNN and they had it broken up into segments when I viewed it there.

"don't do it" was aimed at the cops with guns on her husband, not at her husband.

Check out time stamp 2:10. something falls to the ground from the African American officer's side.

At 2:24 the officer moves to pick that thing up.

It looks to me like there is a camera shake, then where there was nothing by the feet of the cop to the right, there is suddenly a handgun shaped object. Then, another cop has thrown down what I think are gloves and then picks those up.

At 1:59 he reaches over to the cop in red and then it looks like he's putting on gloves and then one of them falls.

I can't understand why the cops didn't withdraw and talk to the wife to help de-escalate the situation. Do the police need to be trained in common sense? The audio is clear that the cops can hear her and she can hear them.

I'm also curious about what she's telling her husband not to do.

[center]

It was there in a later evidence pic.

If you stop this one at about 1:20 you can see the "gun" on the ground. Then the officer in the red backs up into it. In the frame on the right it is by the officer in reds left foot.

I put the "gun" in quotes because I have no idea if it is a gun or how quickly it was there. The first time I see it is at 1:20 in the video. It is however clearly there. It is very clear at 1:23 in this video.

This needs to stop.

Better to wait until everybody has done their investigations before jumping to conclusions. You and I appear to be the only people wondering what she was telling Kieth not to do. This whole event escalated very very quickly. The cops were there for somebody else and then wham. Cooler heads need to prevail.

She's talking to her husband and the cops, when she's saying Keith it might be to get his attention, she told the police don't do it, don't shoot him.

Jumping to conclusions on a message board brings with it zero consequences-- good or bad. Benign speculation, if noted as such, is not an absolute bad. It's merely benign speculation.

Cooler heads are in fact, in charge of the investigation, analyzing it, and reporting it... not us.

But here's a person with information that can help the police de escalate the situation. They could have pulled a cop over to talk to her. She's telling them he has a tbi and is on meds.
My question is what did he do to begin with that got the police to do what they did? They saw a gun? That's it? Where is the gun? And if they feared for their lives, why are they so close to him?

And something about 'he just took his medicine'.
Anybody catch that?

I've seen TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) referenced in a couple of other threads.

What kind of medicine does one take for TBI?

"Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a nondegenerative, noncongenital insult to the brain from an external mechanical force, possibly leading to permanent or temporary impairment of cognitive, physical, and psychosocial functions, with an associated diminished or altered state of consciousness.

The definition of TBI has not been consistent and tends to vary according to specialties and circumstances. Often, the term brain injury is used synonymously with head injury, which may not be associated with neurologic deficits. The definition also has been problematic with variations in inclusion criteria."

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/326510-overview

Traumatic Brain Injury

The family lawyer said he looked confused on the police videos (he along with the family were allowed to see them yesterday).

from school and then all the sudden cops are surrounding my car and threatening to kill me. Confusion would naturally set in, my question is why did the cops have to kill him? He was no threat at all, you cannot kill someone just because the look confused.

Hell you don’t even need training to see this whole thing could have been avoided. Scott's wife was right there. They should have just pulled back and let her talk to him. I guess common sense is not so common.

couldn't someone track down the history of the serial number and see if he is listed as buying it from somewhere?
If the gun has a history that doesn't include him it would be very, very suspicious.

And of course if he was holding a gun, in this situation the only conclusion would be that he was suicidal.
It's obvious that if someone is surrounded by cops with their guns out, displaying a weapon will do nothing but bring instant death.

A stolen one that was picked up from someone else. It would report back stolen.

If he bought the gun from a gun store, there will be traceable records. If he bought if from a buddy or from the street, who knows what kind of history the gun will have.

I suppose the gun could have been planted, but for it to be planted, the cop would have had to have the gun on his person and been ready to drop it at a moments notice.

Once the gun is public in the video, there won't be any opportunity to plant fingerprints or any other evidence on it. Which should be fairly easy to check for. In addition, the cops fingerprints will be all over it.

Also, when a gun is checked for fingerprints, the most successful place to get them is on the magazine and individual bullets, all of which are internal parts. Planting that kind of evidence would be nearly impossible once the weapon is out in the open, and on video. He'd have to release the magazine, remove rounds from the magazine, place the correct parts of the subject's fingers on the bullets, reload the magazine, load and chamber a round in the gun, and do all of that without being seen by anyone, and without getting his own fingerprints on anything.

body fluids fudged his, I mean, the fingerprints. It's not that hard. Juries convict on circumstantial evidence all the time, regardless of what P. Mason teaches.

The simple fact of a gun, a black man, and a bunch of uniforms is all they need for a jury to acquit. They really don't even need the gun, but it's a nice touch.

Theirs is a dangerous, hard job made harder by some of their co-workers. They have to cover what they can.

Just btw, back when I was working the streets as a medic, there were always extra guns at every scene. Nothing has changed.

It is going to be an a black-market weapon, or registered legally to someone else.

I do believe he had a gun, but it cannot have been his legally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/us/charlotte-shooting-keith-scott.html?_r=0

I seem to hear the woman (his wife) calling to him not to "do it" on the video. I think the video supports the police account, sadly.

And if someone wants to explain to me why a TBI person is carrying a loaded weapon, I'd be most interested to hear it. That's real brilliant, that is.

The weapon has his prints and DNA on it. They'll probably get his prints off the ammunition or the clip.

how many stories on shooting(s)---------------this is just wrong.


http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

I just went through the video frame by frame. They planted that gun or dropped something else.

This time stop it at 1:20 and go frame by frame. You can see it at 1:20 on the ground and it becomes pretty clear by 1:23. In between 1:23 and 1:25 you see the cop in the red shirt back up over it and if you stop it at 1:25 you can see him looking down at it.

No Gun Near Keith Scott’s Body in Video Recorded by His Wife Seconds After Killing
Robert Mackey
Sep. 23 2016, 2:01 p.m.

Video recorded by Keith Scott’s wife, Rakeyia, released to the media on Friday, appears to contradict the claim made by Charlotte police sources that a gun was found on the pavement near his feet after he was shot and killed by an officer on Tuesday.

The harrowing images of the fatal encounter were recorded as Rakeyia Scott pleaded with her husband to cooperate with the police and told officers who shouted at him to “drop the gun” that he did not have one. The video does not show the shooting, but it does offer a clear view of the ground around Scott’s body 20 seconds after he was shot.

Those images of the pavement, clear of any objects near the victim’s feet, are significant because they do not show a gun on the ground in the spot where police later claimed one was found.

On Wednesday police sources told a local NBC News affiliate, WCNC, that an image taken by another witness a short time later, after police tape was stretched across the area, showed Scott’s gun on the pavement near his feet.

More:
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/23/no-gun-near-keith-scotts-body-in-video-recorded-by-his-wife-seconds-after-killing-2/

This man should not have been shot but you can clearly see the "gun" on the ground at 1:23 in the video you posted.

There was clearly no gun at his feet in the frame on right.

The gun that was there after the police put it there.

Cannot get past the police chief using the phrase "version of the truth". You can hear it when he talks about the video.

When in hell did the truth get "versions", it is like unique, it is either true or not, unique or not, there are no versions or levels of either.

In fact, even after the truth is established, there can still be versions.

Like the saying puts it, there's two sides to every story. Or as another person put it, when counseling there's "his truth, her truth, and the truth"--which the counselor might or might not ever learn. The counselor might well come up with a version of events that still isn't quite the truth.

As in most other settings--let's take the counselor's view--her friends take her side, his friends take his side, and the counselor's stuck trying to sort things out. Ideally the counselor would convince all the tribes involved that there is one true version of events they can all agree on (which might or might not be "the" truth). In many cases, that doesn't work out. Same for courts--they're there to establish truth, but often get that wrong for various reasons.

A neighbor when I was a kid shot somebody in his front yard. Bruce's story shifted, but finally said the other guy brought the gun, it was an accident when he, Bruce, was threatened. His mother supported him, right up to initially claiming there were no shots fired, then they were fired by somebody else, then they were fired in self-defense as he struggled with the guy who, she said, brought the gun. Until the police found stolen stuff in his room, bullets (etc.) related to the gun, drugs, and said what many in the neighborhood believed was the truth--that the young man fenced stolen goods and dealt drugs and the gun was his. He had no job yet managed to have a decent amount of cash to get his mother things and help pay their mortgage. Even after conviction his parents and relatives still maintained his innocence and moved to be closer to their son in the penitentiary and to escape all the hateful people spreading lies about "my good boy."

So, yeah. The truth has versions, at least at the beginning, and possibly for all time.

This video is outrageous!

They need to publicly release their video and the statements of the cops on the scene NOW! The wife released her video, so it's nonsense that the police video can't be released for the sake of the family!

Why were the cops engaging with them in the first place?

Nt