Home | About | Donate

Questions Remain as Police Release Footage of Fatal Charlotte Shooting


Questions Remain as Police Release Footage of Fatal Charlotte Shooting

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Following days of demonstrations, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department on Saturday released footage of the fatal shooting of 43-year-old Keith Lamont Scott.


It would appear that applying pressure on those who represent the oligarchy pays off.
If the "great unwashed masses" applied that pressure on a daily basis and in a million places the oligarchy would collapse in short order.


An observation.

Had this video in fact established that the person shot had a gun and was threatening the Police with it, the video would have been released immediately.

There a few conclusions I can draw from this.

The first is that the video shows there no gun and or no threat to the officers.

The second is the days of rioting were something that was desired.

The third is that the authorities are going through various videos carefully ( and I suspect there more than one from different angles) and selecting only those that allow enough doubt that there can be no prosecution of the shooter(s). This delay also gives opportunity to doctor said video

Not all of these need be true but if people have other reasonable suggestions as to why that delay , I would like to read them.


I concur. The video in question is not the property of the Police. It belongs to the Public. After such shootings all such video should be turned over immediately to an independent civilian party and secured.

Delaying the release for days on end only serves to erode confidence in the process.

Here in Canada a number of such incidents have occurred whereupon only after the release of third party video of the incident was it confirmed the police version of events not accurate.


Having participated in a number of such demonstrations, I strongly disagree with this reasoning that implies that people taking to the streets is an intentional propaganda tool of the police/state.

Riots are natural and predictable expressions of just rage. The presence of provacateurs does not detract from that legitimate expression.

When I was at the demonstrations in Oakland/Berkeley a couple years ago, the property destruction was limited mostly to major banks and corporate retailers. There were some exceptions, and when more community-oriented businesses were targeted, people stepped in to try to stop it. That's not the story told by the media, but it never is.

Things often go differently. There are always cops. But let's not get so paranoid that we see everything as a manifestation of state control. Riots and street demonstrations are a symbol of our power, not theirs.


Yet in instances such as happened in Quebec and In France and in the USA it has been established that police will infiltrate these groups demonstrating and commit acts of violence so as to discredit them.

This does not preclude such acts as being genuine , but the State will often find itself at advantage when these people demonstrating are potrayed as lawless thugs.

That said in this instance if the State in fact wanted these acts to occur ., they need not use provacateurs . The people are angry and just a few days of refusing to release the videos can stoke that anger.


Excellent comment, Devogenes!

As unfortunate as it is, a riot (as means of direct action) is sometimes the only means left when those being ignored, mistreated, marginalized or oppressed have attempted using every other means ... and nothing else worked.

If the public doesn't want riots then they must realize that being part of a majority does not give that majority dictatorial rights over the minority. Those in the minority deserve respect, attention, a listening ear, and empathy in recognition of their minority status. Otherwise, dissent and civil unrest will be the norm.

In reality, the majority determines the actions of the minority.


But internalized hatred of The Other should not be overlooked. And good for you, using only one number. That's the better direction I think.


No wonder the police didn't want to release the dashcam, etc. This shows it was murder, plain and simple. He was backing up. Even if he had an object in his hands, and even if it was a gun, he was backing up and didn't raise his hands.


I froze the first video A LOT while looking at it more than once, and I cannot see a gun at all, only a couple of shadows. There is nothing that looks like a gun anywhere near his feet in the immediate seconds after Mr. Scott is shot down on the ground. Also, the pigs show absolutely NO concern as to whether or not their victim may die. They do absolutely nothing towards getting him medical attention in the critical first moments after they shot him down in cold blood!


I think that this may be very important.

There is a greatly enlarged closeup photo of the pistol -- lying on the ground -- here:

It is a 1980s-era Colt Government Mustang 380, similar in construction to the iconic Colt 1911 Government caliber .45 model.
In the photo the hammer is back and the safety is off, indicating
that the pistol is ready to be fired and needs only to have the trigger
But -- it appears to me that there is no magazine in the pistol. If
there were a magazine in the pistol, the edge of the magazine baseplate
should be visible as a 1/16 or 3/32 inch strip of metal along the bottom
of the grip. I don't see one.
If in fact the firearm in the photo has no magazine installed, then
who removed it? If someone removed a magazine then what else did they


I don't know. I hate to say it, but at 1:34, that could be an ankle holster. I'm also looking at 1:26. Is something bulging out of his sock? What do others think?


Like a civilian review board, something every municipality in the country needs. Police, of course, are not crazy about the idea.

Contrary to the way they behave, they do work for us, and when they kill one of us, they owe us an explanation that had better convince us they had no choice.


All the focus on whether Scott had a gun or what he was doing, completely ignores the fact that there was no cause for the cops to approach him at all, none, zero, nothing.

The cops created this scene by deciding to harass Scott on spec that he might be up to something criminal, or just to intimidate and exercise their "superiority." They created immediate escalation and risk by approaching him in a threatening manner demanding submission and obedience.

All the speculation about any gun, or bulge in his sock, or whatever, are distractions from the ugly and dangerous role and function of police in this instance, and in US society in general.


If there are questions, then those with questions arent paying attention!


It's a photo released by the police, and the enlarged version appears in someone's tweet.

My questions include; why did the police release a picture of a 1911-style firearm with the hammer back and the safety off, but with no magazine?

Do they want us to think that Mr. Scott was carrying a pistol with no magazine in it, but in so-called "Condition One," that is, ready to fire?

Did the police remove a magazine from the pistol for their own safety? If so why did they not complete the standard clearing procedure, which ends with lowering the hammer?

Or did they remove the magazine for their own safety, but then also pull the hammer back from a safe "hammer down" position to the "fire" position and move the safety to the "off" position from the "on" position, so as to make it appear that Mr.Scott had a pistol in his possession that was ready to fire and thus posed an immediate threat to them that required them to shoot in self defense, thinking that no one would notice the absence of a magazine in the photo that they themselves released?

In other words, are the police manipulating evidence?

I think that these are important questions.


p.s. to my post #25:

If the police removed a magazine from the pistol, why did they then put the pistol back on the ground and photograph it there, as if it had never been moved by anyone?


This incident is such a mess there is no way of knowing what the truth is. The PD has made this even worse with conflicting stories and refusing to release the video footage--whether it justifies the shooting or the cops were wrong. Truth matters and getting it from the police (in an city or state) is a sorry state of affairs.

Here's the standard truth (as it has played out for decades). The cops will be cleared, the shooting justified, the city will pay millions, the cops will still have their jobs and killing people. The second case truth, one cop will be charged, suspended with pay, the prosecutor will lose the case (or the jury fail to convict), the city will pay millions, the cop will still have his job. He will kill again(and that has proven out over and over with these rogue officers).

What has become clear these last two years in particular is compliance, doing everything the cop tells you, even before he tells you, can/will get you killed. As horrible as these stories are, the worse one so far is the cop emptying his weapon into the man sitting in the passenger side front seat. The husband tells the cop he is legally armed, the cop demands ID with weapon pointed at him, and as he reached for his ID, the cop empties his weapon into him as the woman (his wife) is screaming for the cop to stop shooting him. She is dragged out, handcuffed, slammed to the street as her husband dies. The stop wasn't even justified and the officer couldn't give a reasonable reason for the stop. Compliance is no longer on the table to not be murdered. Oh, and that cop was cleared and still has his job. The lawsuit is still pending.

All PDs protect their own. Others officers on site never stop the one who has crossed the line so they are accessories to murder. They never "tell" on their on. Command backs all of them and the rogue cop. The union backs the cop. The Chief does his PR blitz to make it clear the shooting/assault/abuse was justified. The prosecutor won't intervene as he can't afford to have cops turn on him. The mayor backs the PD. Juries won't convict.

How did we get to this? Easy. The Establishment hi-jacked the legal system and made all PDs (and cops) unaccountable to us the 99 Percenter tax payers. We fund them and yet we have absolutely no control over them. Body cams, car cams don't mean sh** if they aren't on, aren't released and all we have are the cops lies (their version) of what occurred. That is the ultimate FU.

Driving while black, sitting while black, in a wheel chair while black, in your own driveway while black, calling 911 for help while black, jailed while black, car broken down (and needing help) while black, getting stopped/questioned/harassed, etc while black. I love the fact that a top cop wrote a book about what to do and not to do in order to avoid being killed. Guess what? Even that assh*** can't justify the Charlotte shooting. But even then he is hedging his bet by stating the cops may have been justified. Wow. What else is he going to say? Retired or not (I don't believe he is), he's still got that cop mentality of occupier versus everyone else (who is the enemy), and their lives are more important than us.


Agreed. The cops were present on another mission and one of the cops decided to harass this man who was minding his own business. THAT should be the story, and THAT has become lost. This same cop escalated the situation and it appears from all the statement this same got got pissed that this man was slow to comply (or was complying) and he killed him anyway since he was already pissed and eager for violence. They were all wrong and are all guilty of exceeding their authority. Bullies with guns. Thugs with guns. It's that simple for me. Spin this sordid tale any way they like, they committed premeditated murder.


Agreed. I just think we need to be careful not to commit to a position that is not defensible. I hear a lot of people repeatedly yelling "it was a book!" Maybe it was, but I'm not sure we know that yet.