Keith Lamont Scott killing: No charges against officer, DA says

If carrying a concealed weapon makes one a threat, then America is geared for slaughter on the streets.

Charlotte, North Carolina (CNN)The officer who fatally shot Keith Lamont Scott won’t face charges, a prosecutor said Wednesday, closing a two-month investigation into the killing that led to heated protests and divided the city of Charlotte.

Mecklenburg County District Attorney Andrew Murray said he didn’t reach the decision alone; a total of 15 prosecutors unanimously agreed that Charlotte-Mecklenburg police Officer Brentley Vinson was justified in shooting Scott on September 20 in an apartment complex parking lot.
In his hour-long announcement, Murray refuted a series of “erroneous claims” made shortly after the shooting. He said those narratives fueled widespread misconceptions about what actually happened.
Among them:
— Scott’s relatives said he didn’t have a gun, but “all the credible evidence” led to the conclusion that Scott was armed, Murray said. He said Scott’s DNA was on the grip of a gun found at the scene.
Murray also said at least…

View original post 603 more words

Posted on 12/01/2016, in Black lives matter, Cases, Cops Gone Wild, Keith Lamont Scott and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 26 Comments.

  1. yahtzeebutterfly

    Vinson’s statement is at this link:

    Click to access FN1.pdf

    Excerpt from page 21 (notice the word “evil” —remember how Michael Brown was described?) :

    “So he came out, squared up on us and he had this look in his eye like he was trying to decide what he was about to…who…what he was gonna do…like it was about to happen right now. He said he…he didn’t say anything but he had just this…I don’t know, I’ve never seen that look before, it was like he just wasn’t…wasn’t there and he’s…he just had like this evil look. And he…so we’re…at this point we’ve been giving him verbals the whole time he’s in the car. When I pulled up I saw he had a gun that’s why we’re in this situation from the get go…before we planned the op. Miranda’s yelling, “Gun, gun, gun!” He decides to come out the car with the gun in hand. He’s still not complying…not listening to anything we’re saying. And at this point he looks at me I’m across the van…he looks at me and then he looks at…he looks over in Pendergraph and Wiggins’ direction. He looks in Miranda and Hoss’ direction and then he turned back to me. While this is all going on we’re still yelling, “Police! Drop the gun, drop the gun…drop the gun, drop the gun!” I felt like if I didn’t do anything right then at that point it’s like he…he was gonna shoot me or he’s gonna shoot one a my buddies um and it was gonna happen right now. So I reacted, I was the only one that had a decent backdrop. Um Miranda and Hoss were over here, Wiggins and Pendergraph were over here and neither one of them tried to take the shot. It’d be…it could be a blue on blue incident. So I fired, I fired my weapon over the hood of the car. I think I fired four times um…he dropped, the gun fell out his hand, he fell on the ground.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • My God. This is obviously to dehumanize the victim.
      It’s the same sick depraved false witness stuff they practice over and over, repeating so much that it probably seems real to them.
      But that’s what works, until it doesn’t.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Unreal. The excuse of the ‘perception’ of what might happen clears these officers every time. Ugh!

    Liked by 3 people

  3. yahtzeebutterfly

    DA: (starting at timestamp 15:41): “But what did Ofc. Vinson know? Ofc. Vinson was aware that Mr. Scott had a gun in his vehicle. He was aware that he had marijuana in his vehicle. He was aware that, when he pinned the car, that Mr. Scott chose to draw that weapon and had it in his hand. He was aware that after repeated commands, Mr. Scott did not obey those commands, acted with aberrant behavior, stepped out of the vehicle with gun in hand, doesn’t run, doesn’t drop the gun, doesn’t leave the gun in the car, but steps out and steps back assessing each officer with a trance-like look described by Ofc. Vinson.”

    Ofc. Vinson did NOT state in his police interview that Keith had a “trance-like look.”
    Ofc. Vinson actually said that Keith had an ”evil look” and an ”intense gaze.”

    From Ofc. Vinson’s police interview:
    Vinson (page 21 of 74) : “he didn’t say anything but he had just this…I don’t know, I’ve never seen that look before, it was like he just wasn’t there and he’s…he just had like this evil look.”

    Vinson (page 38 of 74) : “He didn’t say anything when he exited the vehicle. He didn’t say anything, to my knowledge, when he was in the vehicle. There was…he didn’t…he didn’t say anything at all throughout the whole …he just had this look on his face like…it’s almost like he was thinking like he was…he was just intense, he had like this intense gaze.”

    The other officers on the scene, NONE of whom chose to shoot at Keith, did NOT feel that Keith had an “evil look.” Only Ofc. Vinson had that interpretation in his mind. Here is how the other officers described Keith’s look in their police interviews:

    Wiggins (page 8 of 23): “Then I started to take cover because, uh, the guy just had the, the black male just had a, uh, a like a blank stare on his face.”

    Hostutler (page 19 of 35): “So he had a blank stare on his face almost what I would define as emotionless um and non reactive…”

    Pendergraph (page 13 of 28): “He was in a…he…he was like in a trance like state.”

    Liked by 2 people

  4. that picture claiming it shows a gun is a FARCE……no way on earth a gun in a holster strapped to the ankle sticks out that far…..and the FACT remains there was NO GUN on the video, where the “gun” was later pictured, and it was NOT where that officer moving stuff around was either.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It is a strange angle but the weight of the gun might have caused it to fall back some. They never said there was never a gun only that no video clearly shows his hands. Every officer on the scene saw the gun, 2 witnesses saw something in his hand but couldn’t say what it was due to their distance from the area. Just because a video does not clearly capture the gun doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.

      Did you watch the press conference? The gun was connected without a doubt to Scott. The guy who sold it to him talked about it on his FB page to a third party, he sold and modified the holster to Scott and id’d the one on Scott as the one he sold. He went with Scott to buy a magazine and ammo. Mrs. Scott lied about him not having a gun when they discovered texts between them arguing of his having a gun just one month before the shooting, she claimed he hadn’t owned a gun since his accident in 2015. Scott’s DNA and a fingerprint were found on the gun.

      Sorry but everything has been explained and even one of the Scott’s attorneys admitted he had a gun, they only questioned actions since Scott never raised the gun.


      • please with all due respect i have no desire to discuss this with you……your claim the weight of the gun caused that is simply SILLY…….and you do not address the FACT the gun pictured on the ground was NEVER THERE on any of the videos, which means beyond a shadow of doubt that is was moved there later and then photographed……please drop any communication with me and i will do the same with you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Did the prosecutor produce a still showing Keith brandishing a gun from one of their unreleased Videos yet? What hand did the police say he had the gun in? Because I don’t see any mention of that. And that would be pretty relevant? Something ALL the cops would relay in their reports. But I haven’t listened to the entire presser, nor read each cops statement.

        Because I have 2 stills from 2 different videos, of both of Keith’s hands and both times each hand was empty. Clearly empty.
        IF I could do that w/ just my new tablet, that I’m not even used to yet, Cops could produce a still showing a gun in his hand, which musta been visible on cam if it was so visable to ALL the cops?

        Liked by 2 people

        • yahtzeebutterfly

          Good morning, Shannon,

          “What hand did the police say he had the gun in?”

          From the transcripts of officers’ recorded statements:

          Ofc. Vinson (page 19 of 74): “As soon as the glass breaks, the suspect gets out of the vehicle with the gun in his right hand and he squares up towards me.”

          Ofc. Hostutler (page 17 of 35): “So at that point as I was going from the suspects vehicle towards another point of cover, towards the truck, uh, I could see again suspect had firearm down by his right leg and was holding it in his right hands.”

          Ofc. Wiggins (page 10 of 23): “…then the suspect got out of the car and I can see the gun in, I believe it was his right hand, it’s a, it was a black handgun.”

          Ofc. Pendergraph (page 10 of 28): “…he stepped out and immediately you could see the gun in his right hand.”

          Here is the screenshot of Ofc. Vinson’s location:


          “Cops could produce a still showing a gun in his hand, which musta been visible on cam if it was so visable to ALL the cops?”

          From page 6 of the DA’s evidence report:

          “None of the video recordings (dash camera, body-worn camera or cellphone) clearly captured Scott’s hands.”

          Liked by 2 people

          • How bizarre! It didn’t take a whole lotta time or fancy editing software for dumb 0l me to go thru & SS a couple of youtube videos to find 2 CLEAR still pics of both hands empty!
            I don’t know how to post pics here or I would.
            But I remember thinking that those who love to excuse & exonerate ANY&EVERY police killing ( especially if the victim was black ) would explain away the 2 SS by saying ” by the time of the 2nd pic he musta switched hands.”

            So they actually did shatter his window?
            So they’re so alarmed because they see an armed Man w/a joint that they decide the best thing to do is start antagonizing him! Get right at his window & start screaming &cursing & banging the glass out?

            Liked by 1 person

          • I just thought If I post the pics on Twitter maybe you could copy the tweet and post it here?
            I’m going to try.
            Also, I should send them to the DA as my civic duty.

            Liked by 2 people

          • yahtzeebutterfly

            Sounds good, Shannon. I’ll check your twitter timeline. When I see your screenshots, I’ll open them in another window, copy them, and then paste them here.

            Liked by 1 person

  5. “If carrying a concealed weapon makes one a threat, then America is geared for slaughter on the streets.”

    Concealed Carry…..this means you are carrying a firearm that is not visible, under a shirt, in waistband covered by a shirt, and yes on an ankle holster like Scott’s. In North Carolina you need to have a concealed carry permit in order to carry concealed unless you are on your own property. Mr. Scott did not have a concealed carry permit nor, as a convicted felon, could he obtain one.

    Open Carry……North Carolina is an open carry state, this mean you can carry a firearm that is visible like on the outside of a shirt/pants whether on side front or back of your body. The firearm is clearly visible to all. Mr. Scott was a convicted felon and could not legally open carry or even own a gun.

    What is not permitted under either of these is brandishing a firearm. The minute Mr. Scott took the firearm out of the holster and held it in his hands he was guilty of brandishing a firearm. No one wants to see people walking around with guns in their hands.

    Mr. Scott did not have a legal right to own a gun. He was a convicted felon and lost that right. The minute he purchased a gun illegally his motives became suspect to me and that is what makes him a threat, not concealed or open carry.


    • Keith could have been charged with those violations, which the last I heard, do not carry the death penalty. And, even the death penalty is not sentenced without due process of law.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Just to clarify….I agree that his crimes do not warrant the death penalty but at what point do you think an officer has a right to defend himself or the public? Do we wait on due process after he kills someone? It would have only taken a fraction of a second for him to have raised his arms to fire. Should an officer or innocent bystander pay with their life first before they take action?

        He was give numerous warnings and ignored them all from when he was sitting in the vehicle to when he got out. I don’t have the answers so tell me at what point they should have taken action?


        • Towerflower,

          “Just to clarify….I agree that his crimes do not warrant the death penalty but at what point do you think an officer has a right to defend himself or the public?”

          It’s not what I think, and I’m not going to try to think based on speculation of what could happen. If the officer or officers who killed Keith were concerned about the public, I certainly did not hear them tell anyone to get back into their house or take cover. Did you?

          That’s the problem I see — the “could” that is based on biases from one point of view. Okay — I retract my statement about speculation. Let’s speculate. What if the officers allowed Keith to continue to walk backwards with his hands at his sides, and then tackled him in take-down style?

          Actually, I think the more appropriate question, when it comes to law enforcement exercising self-defense, is why is it that some officers capture armed suspects who have shot at them, but kill suspects who have no gun in their hands? The right to self-defense cannot violate the constitutional rights of others. Conceal carry has posed a problem for law enforcement. While it’s geared for self-defense, it has become a problem when SOME citizens tell officers that they have a gun. They can’t reach for it to give it to officers. Even going into their pocket or purse to get the CCL can result in them being shot on the assumption that they’re going for the gun.

          So, if Keith’s gun was in the ankle hostler, and he was told to “drop the gun” how was he to do that without being shot on an assumption that he was going for the gun to harm others? If he was told to drop the gun while he was in the car, how was he to toss it out of the window without an assumption that he was going to fire it?

          The what if’s have to consider both sides, should they not? While officers are given discretion for what they think and their fear, why aren’t deceased persons given consideration for what they thought and feared? Would you like to speculate on that? Or, are only certain persons given the right to think, to fear, to feel? Okay — the judicial system will not allow third-party testimony for what the deceased might have thought — they are dead and cannot testify on their own behalf. That’s an advantage to the killer who gets to be human.


          “Do we wait on due process after he kills someone?”

          That’s a moot issue, because the officer has not been charged.

          Why do we follow trials on this blog? We observe trials because that is due process taking place. We started by following the trial of George Zimmerman, remember? Most people who followed that case had already formed an opinion over his guilt or innocence — WITHOUT VIDEO. In this matter, and without prejudice against any party involved, we can express our opinions based on what we see and what we hear.


          “I don’t have the answers so tell me at what point they should have taken action?”

          You answered your own question by saying “taken action.” Your answer gives humans the discretion to use deadly force against other humans. I can’t fathom having a job that gives me discretion to take the lives of others. I am anti-gun and do not believe in killing — PERIOD.

          Liked by 2 people

  6. yahtzeebutterfly

    The DA has NO idea what was on Keith’s mind and yet speculates about this in order to make Keith have some motive to shoot at an officer. (I say “an officer,” because as I recall from his press conference, the DA said that there was only ONE bullet in Keith’s gun and that there were loose bullets in Keith’s vehicle.

    It is as if the DA is doing all he can to back up Ofc. Vinson’s explained reason for shooting Keith.

    DA: (starting at timestamp16:50): “Now how ‘bout Mr. Scott at that point? Well, Ofc. Vinson did not know Mr. Scott, had not seen him. So unbeknownst to him, Mr. Scott was aware that he was a convicted felon with a gun, an illegal gun, and that he had warrants out for him in Gaston County, and that he had police officers in tactical gear, weapons drawn, surrounding his vehicle. It is at this time that Ofc. Vinson fired his weapon four times.”

    (Question: Did Keith even know there was a warrant out for him?)

    The DA made a similar statement speculating about what was on Keith’s mind on page 6 of the investigative report:
    ”An important fact likely known to Keith Scott – but unknown to the officers – was that Scott had an active warrant for his arrest in Gaston County and being caught with a firearm would likely lead to Scott returning to prison.”

    Then, on page 7 of the investigative report, the DA tries to make it look as if Keith could be threatening due to aggressiveness by stating:

    “While unknown to the officers at the time they provided these descriptions, this behavior is consistent with the known effects of the drugs prescribed to Scott, which also may include aggression and behavior abnormalities.”

    Well, the video taken by Keith’s wife shows Keith to have a CALM demeanor.
    Even Ofc. Vinson on page 38 of his police interview states:
    “when Hoss hit the car it’s almost like he took a deep breath like he’s relaxed…just took a deep breath and he got out the car.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • Re:

      “The DA has NO idea what was on Keith’s mind and yet speculates about this in order to make Keith have some motive to shoot at an officer.”

      It’s bigotvoyance. When all else fails, claim being able to read minds and see into the future based on biases and bigotry.

      Liked by 2 people

      • it amazes me how they claim he was aggressive when the video shows ZERO aggression from him?????

        Liked by 3 people

        • Bill,
          They have the need to paint Keith as a monster. It gives the impression that Keith deserved to be killed.

          No justice, no trust.

          Liked by 1 person

          • and this is the point i dont understand from anybody defending officers in these cases, they get caught in blatant LIES about the basic FACTS and defenders dismiss that reality and accept every word they utter as gospel truth.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Bill,
            I agree. It’s somewhat like the question we ask — how is it that people can deny what is before their eyes? Well, they hear someone at a press conference say there’s more to it, right? Subsequently, the only thing(s) that is “more to it” concerns the background of the deceased, what he or she was doing in violation of law that they WERE NOT stopped for. There might be one thing that is said that is not shown on the video, but the video disputes it.

            Liked by 1 person

  7. chuquestaquenumber1

    No surprise. However,look up William Bruce Ray. See how North Carolina LEOs treated him .

    Liked by 1 person

%d bloggers like this: