No charges against Charlotte cop in Scott shooting

No charges will be brought against Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police officer Brentley Vinson in the September shooting death of a man in University City, the man’s attorney said Wednesday.

Keith Lamont Scott, 43, was shot Sept. 20 in a confrontation with officers outside his apartment. Video made at the scene records police calling on him to drop his gun, then four shots are heard.

A gun, an ankle holster and marijuana were found at the scene.

This entry was posted in To Protect and Serve. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to No charges against Charlotte cop in Scott shooting

  1. crazyeighter says:

    Well, this ought to stir the SJWs up again.

  2. josey whales says:

    Yeah, black dudes walking backwards are always super dangerous and justify being smoked. The pistol was in the ankle holster, coppers pulled it out while frisking him after he was down and tossed it on the ground. There is another video that shows a cop tossing it down. In other news, LaVoy Finnicum and Jack Yanntis were unavailable for comment.

  3. Boots says:

    Josey Whales is 110% correct. WATCH VID showing cop in red T-shirt:

    1. squatting down over the feet of Keith Lamont Scott’s dead body
    2. reaching between his legs (cop reaching between his own legs) with his left hand
    3. throwing whatever it was he grabbed with his left hand behind him, between his legs.

    What we’re seeing is officer red shirt remove Scott’s pistol from it’s holster and push it between his legs to a position behind him. See more extensive frame by frame analysis in link below.

    Note that the dead man fell forward. If he’d had a gun in hand it’d have fallen by his side or near his chest/head. NOT 3 feet behind him. The shoot wasn’t justified. Red shirt should be charged with falsifying evidence. Shooter should be charged with murder. If Lamont were your brother, son, father, friend, you’d be screaming mad, too. Rightly so.

    Extensive frame by frame analysis:

    1. Lamont Scott dead on the ground
    2. Lamont Scott’s right pant leg rolled above ankle holster
    3. bare ground behind Scott’s feet with NO GUN IN SIGHT
    4. officer red shirt approaching Scott’s feet, bending down….doing what vid clip above shows

    • Winston Smith says:

      From what I have seen, you are dead on correct. Hopefully all evidence makes it onto the net and justice somehow someway gets served.

    • Curtis says:

      Actually, I have 3 blog posts on this. You just linked one. I went over this extensively. From being dubious of the cops, to siding with the cops. That cop IS NOT straddled over Scott’s ankles. He is forward of the ankles, reaches down slightly forward, then sweeps the handgun back.

      Also, if I remember correctly, the side windows were tinted. I doubt the cop would see an ankle holder, from his position on the passenger-side window until Scott got out.

      I went through this for days and hours, like I said, siding with Scott originally, until I didn’t.

      And I am not a respecter of anyone, not even cops.

      2 of my vids here slo-mo and regular speed. You have to watch them with a good eye. The cop is reaching just above Scott’s knees. Here:

      That cops hand is nowhere near the ankle holster. Trust me on this. I’m not one of those to grab the crotch and gyrate over copdom.

      Now, for the original contact? I’ll question that.

  4. Think about it, the 3 government employees who attacked him were in plain clothes and driving an unmarked vehicle. The uniformed cop got to the scene just seconds before shots were fired and did nothing to try and deescalate tensions.

    What are you going to do if three armed steroid addicts charge you while screaming conflicting orders? They were lucky he didn’t shoot back from the start. No armed government employee should be “plain clothes”. They should all be clearly marked and identifiable from 100 yards. If that means hot pink shirts with flashing lights, then so be it.

    • crazyeighter says:

      Some have suggested that no police officer be permitted to cover their face while on duty.

      • ” … I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as ‘ninja’ … Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic. It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun is a target. I see no reason to change that view.”

        Jeff Cooper

  5. Boots says:

    I agree with the no face covering. If you’re gonna shoot someone or use other force, and justify it as lawful, then there’s no need to hide your face like you’re sneaking around doing something wrong.

    The very sad and infuriating thing – that which destroys all faith in police, prosecutors, judges, and the justice system – is the above vids clearly raise enough evidence to warrant charges of some sort, murder being the biggest, but tampering with evidence also.

    Despite clear evidence the victim was shot from a rear quarter angle while walking backward, with no firearm in hand, and his pant leg raised to show the gun wasn’t in his hands, because if he’d reached to unholster and throw the gun he’d have been shot, those sworn to uphold the law brazenly declare their guys can shoot anybody for anything and those in charge will protect them.

    That’s the real story here.

  6. Winston Smith says:

    I also find the anon trend in police work to be disturbing.

If your comment 'disappears', don't trip - it went to my trash folder and I will restore it when I moderate.