Conflicting Tales in the Case of Keith Lamont Scott

scott-2Keith Lamont Scott.  Mr. Scott was the man (African-American) gunned down by police in Charlotte, North Carolina on Tuesday, 20 September 2016.  The facts are still in dispute.  The family says that Mr. Scott was reading a book while waiting in the parking lot for his son to return home from school.  They say that Mr. Scott had a book, not a weapon.  Family members who have seen the police video say Mr. Scott was unarmed and walking backward at the time he was shot. Police say they were attempting to serve a warrant on a different man, not Scott, when they noticed Mr. Scott inside a vehicle. Apparently they ordered him to exit the vehicle, they report that he exited his vehicle with a weapon in hand, and police say they ordered him to drop the weapon.  When he did not immediately comply, they felt that their lives were endangered.  The police officer who fired the fatal shot was Officer Brentley Vinson, also African-American.  Police claim they found a weapon ‘near’ the scene, the family say he had none and that the weapon was planted by police. This is what has been made public, and as you can plainly see, there is wide disparity between the two versions.

There is dash-cam and body-cam video, but Police Chief Kerr Putney has not released it, triggering three-days of protest in the city of Charlotte.  Putney claims first that he fears the video would trigger further protests, and second that it “is not definitive”.  Putney would, perhaps, be well within his rights, as police chief, if he said he would not release the video just yet, as the investigators were still reviewing it in order to determine what happened.  I might have bought that.  But instead, he has made statements that made little or no sense, certainly did not justify his refusal to release the video, and made my b.s. meter dance all over the dial.

  • “Transparency is in the eye of the beholder. If you think I’m saying we should display a victim’s worst day for public consumption, that is not the transparency I’m speaking of.”
  • “I can tell you this: There’s your truth, my truth and the truth. Some people have already made up their minds.”
  • “I’m going to be very intentional about protecting the integrity of the investigation, and in so doing, I’m not going to release the video right now,”
  • “Because I can tell you from the facts, that the story is a little bit different as to how it’s been portrayed so far, especially through social media.”
  • “The video does not give me absolute definitive visual evidence that would confirm that a person is pointing a gun. I did not see that in the videos that I’ve reviewed.”
  • “When taken in totality of other evidence, it supports what we’ve heard and the version of the truth about the circumstances that happened that led to the death of Mr. Scott.”
  • “I can tell you a weapon was seized, a handgun, I can also tell you we did not find a book that was made reference to. We did find a weapon, and the witnesses corroborated it too, beyond just the officers.”
  • “If I felt laws were broken, I would have taken action by now.”

This sort of run-around only leads to speculation.  The family has seen the video and they have asked that it be released to the public.  Now comes the kicker:  If the video is not released by October 1st, it will require a court order to release it.  Why?  Because North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory recently signed into law a bill, HB 972 , that turns all police body camera and dash camera footage into personnel records, instead of public records. Thus, not only in the case of the video from Mr. Scott’s shooting, but in all future cases, dash-cam and body-cam video will be unavailable to the public.  How very convenient in a state where six people have died in police shootings so far this year.

I cannot comment on the facts of the case, because there are no verifiable facts as yet.  And, neither am I a huge proponent of video made public that shows a man being shot and killed.  BUT … in this case, it would seem the old adage “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” may be applicable.  Given the ambiguity of Chief Putney’s various statements, and given the statements by family members who have seen the video, I think it needs to be released to the public before October 1 when HB 972 goes into effect.  The law, by the way, does not have the support of many police chiefs who argue that it would hamper their ability to prove they were justified in using force. I would agree with them.

12 thoughts on “Conflicting Tales in the Case of Keith Lamont Scott

  1. I live in Charlotte and I would agree this has been handled poorly and not with the transparency touted and needed. This was a 43 year old man with seven children. There are too many questions. It also frustrates me that attention is not given to the many positive, non-violent protests and discussions going on with ministry and other leaders, which is more Charlotte’s nature. It pains me to see violent reactions as that takes away from the message. The anger and frustrations are real. This has been building in our country for some time and with failures to convict in more obvious situations it adds fuel to the fire.

    The problems are complex and the answers need to be holistic. Poverty, lack of investment and opportunity, lack of social investment, increased crime to fill voids, new Jim Crow-like efforts to limit voting, easy gun access, better community policing and training on handling conflict or potential conflict, biases. etc.

    The significant majority of police are good police officers, yet I would not want their job. They want to do the right thing, but know their job has gotten more dangerous. There is a predisposition to act which must be guarded against. This is the theme of Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Blink.” We also need White people like me to better understand what being Black in America is like. Senator Tim Scott, a GOP senator from South Carolina, spoke of the seven times he has been stopped by the police. He also notes he consistently has to show his ID to access government buildings more so than his White colleagues. My race worries less about being stopped with the thought that this might be the last act I do on earth.

    Thanks for this post. Keith

    Liked by 2 people

    • Just today I became unwittingly involved in a conversation on Facebook about this. One friend had posted something and somebody else responded that if everyone simply obeyed the police they would be fine … no worries. I replied with “yes, as long as their skin is white”. She called me a whining n—-. (My Facebook picture is a wolf, so people who don’t actually know me have no idea what race I am). I chuckled for a second and then realized that she is the very kind of person that makes intelligent, compassionate discussion impossible.


I would like to hear your opinion, so please comment if you feel so inclined.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s