OMG - family of disabled man shot in Charlotte TOOK VIDEO and only now released it

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

We have people that will troll the public in the worst way, Hutch. It's quite possible that picture is bullshit. Why was his wife telling him"Don't you do that!" ?

I have no idea what the wife was saying.
The photo was held up as evidence that he was armed. I'm simply asking questions as to how that could be.

By who? It doesn't appear in the original video.

THE POLICE!!!!

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nyda...y-article-1.2803052?client=ms-android-verizon

That's my point dope!

This is a photo of a supposed gun at Scott's feet. It looks more like one of the gloves the officer dropped.View attachment 90780

And here is a still from the video just after the shooting showing no gun.

How do you know it's not underneath him?

Because the police confirmed that the witness photo shows gun on the ground.

Witness photo shows gun at scene, sources confirm
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Police sources confirm to NBC Charlotte that a witness' photo taken moments after the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott shows a gun at his feet.

The cop in red tossed down the glove and that's what you're seeing in this photo and its why it was not in the video.

Very clearly seen on the video.

Ah...
I see it now.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That's my point.
Then where did the photo come from?
Also the officer in red is bending over Scott in the photo with the purported gun. He never does that in the video. The photo has to be sometime after the video.

View attachment 90800

Video here
Video Emerges From Scene Of Charlotte Police Shooting Of Keith Scott

We dont know where the pic originated.
And I find it highly unlikely that the cops would take a still from her video and photo shop a gun into it.

Can you read?

The only officer in a red shirt is bent over Scott in the photo. If you watch the video, he never does that. Therefore, it must be sometime after the video. If that is indeed a gun in the photo, how did it get there?

Somebody photoshopped it maybe, dipshit?

That's my point dope.
You fuckers either can't read or play dumb very well. Either way, dumb is dumb.

The cops yelled he had a gun, the motherfucker had a gun...moron. She was telling him don't do it because he probably wanted to kill himself dealing with a cackling sow like that.

The cops also released this.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nyda...y-article-1.2803052?client=ms-android-verizon

No gun in the video.
It had to be placed there later.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I wasn't paying attention to the Cop in the red before. Easily missed. But people gotta be dicks about it.

 

[Pop23]

I watched the video and cant see a damn thing, please be specific and explain how it proves he didn't have a firearm. Just because she is saying he doesn't have one doesn't prove anything. And on the video you can not see anything.

Maybe this will help.

Photo released by police claiming gun on ground.

Still from video right after shooting showing no throw down gun on the ground yet.

You do understand that the two are not photo'd at anywhere near the same time, right?

There's police tape in one, non in the other

If that really is a gun it would support the throw down gun theory.
They wouldnt put up crime tape then return the gun to the original location.

DING...DING....DING. WE HAVE A WINNAH.

It only took you half the thread to get it.

Except it may not be in the original position.

Some folks be dense

 

[Pop23]

We dont know where the pic originated.
And I find it highly unlikely that the cops would take a still from her video and photo shop a gun into it.

Can you read?

The only officer in a red shirt is bent over Scott in the photo. If you watch the video, he never does that. Therefore, it must be sometime after the video. If that is indeed a gun in the photo, how did it get there?

Somebody photoshopped it maybe, dipshit?

That's my point dope.
You fuckers either can't read or play dumb very well. Either way, dumb is dumb.

The cops yelled he had a gun, the motherfucker had a gun...moron. She was telling him don't do it because he probably wanted to kill himself dealing with a cackling sow like that.

The cops also released this.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nyda...y-article-1.2803052?client=ms-android-verizon

No gun in the video.
It had to be placed there later.

Or under the perp

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I watched the video and cant see a damn thing, please be specific and explain how it proves he didn't have a firearm. Just because she is saying he doesn't have one doesn't prove anything. And on the video you can not see anything.

Maybe this will help.

Photo released by police claiming gun on ground.

Still from video right after shooting showing no throw down gun on the ground yet.

You do understand that the two are not photo'd at anywhere near the same time, right?

There's police tape in one, non in the other

If that really is a gun it would support the throw down gun theory.
They wouldnt put up crime tape then return the gun to the original location.

Or the gun was removed from under his body and put aside.

They would have secured the weapon long before putting up crime tape.
Makes me question whether it's a gun in the photo.

The poleece said it was.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nyda...y-article-1.2803052?client=ms-android-verizon

 

[Pop23]

We dont know where the pic originated.
And I find it highly unlikely that the cops would take a still from her video and photo shop a gun into it.

Can you read?

The only officer in a red shirt is bent over Scott in the photo. If you watch the video, he never does that. Therefore, it must be sometime after the video. If that is indeed a gun in the photo, how did it get there?

Somebody photoshopped it maybe, dipshit?

That's my point dope.
You fuckers either can't read or play dumb very well. Either way, dumb is dumb.

The cops yelled he had a gun, the motherfucker had a gun...moron. She was telling him don't do it because he probably wanted to kill himself dealing with a cackling sow like that.

The cops also released this.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nyda...y-article-1.2803052?client=ms-android-verizon

No gun in the video.
It had to be placed there later.

How many times does this have to be shown. The police tape is up, so the photo could not have been taken "moments after the shooting".

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I watched the video and cant see a damn thing, please be specific and explain how it proves he didn't have a firearm. Just because she is saying he doesn't have one doesn't prove anything. And on the video you can not see anything.

Maybe this will help.

Photo released by police claiming gun on ground.

Still from video right after shooting showing no throw down gun on the ground yet.

Did you just jump in this thread without reading it?
The cops would have immediately secured the gun when the guy went down.
She didnt get a clear shot until he'd been on the ground awhile and the cops would have secured the weapon before she got there.

Note the crime scene tape in the photo.
Obviously after the video.
If the police are claiming that to be a photo of the purported gun, then how and why is it there after the video?

Are the police doing so?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nyda...y-article-1.2803052?client=ms-android-verizon

 

[Pop23]

Maybe this will help.

Photo released by police claiming gun on ground.

Still from video right after shooting showing no throw down gun on the ground yet.

You do understand that the two are not photo'd at anywhere near the same time, right?

There's police tape in one, non in the other

If that really is a gun it would support the throw down gun theory.
They wouldnt put up crime tape then return the gun to the original location.

Or the gun was removed from under his body and put aside.

They would have secured the weapon long before putting up crime tape.
Makes me question whether it's a gun in the photo.

The poleece said it was.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nyda...y-article-1.2803052?client=ms-android-verizon

They also said it was a clean shoot, so I guess we close the thread, aye?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sure they did, they had the video all this time and only now released it, sure thing. The family has been lying since this started.

Or they waited to release it to use as leverage on the advice of their counsel.
The police will have no choice but to release their own now.

Since they didn't release it until after the police finally showed them their video that took them days to edit, she didn't tell them she had a video to see whether they would alter their videos thinking they were safe to edit them.

So now you claim the government shoots innocents and fabricates evidence against innocents while at the same time you say the government needs to be bigger and more powerful.

You're stuck on stupid.

So when the police release a photo showing the purported gun and it's nowhere to be seen in the new video, where did it come from?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nyda...y-article-1.2803052?client=ms-android-verizon

1. Under him

2. Beside him

3. Above his head

4. Under his jacket

5. Removed from under the car.

Over here

Over there

In a house

On a chair

In a fan

I do not like them Sam I am

 

[edthecynic]

I watched the video and cant see a damn thing, please be specific and explain how it proves he didn't have a firearm. Just because she is saying he doesn't have one doesn't prove anything. And on the video you can not see anything.

Maybe this will help.

Photo released by police claiming gun on ground.

Still from video right after shooting showing no throw down gun on the ground yet.

Did you just jump in this thread without reading it?
The cops would have immediately secured the gun when the guy went down.
She didnt get a clear shot until he'd been on the ground awhile and the cops would have secured the weapon before she got there.

You are assuming there was a weapon to secure!

Remember before the video was released the police CONFIRMED that the photo taken by a "witness" showed the gun on the ground!

Witness photo shows gun at scene, sources confirm

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Police sources confirm to NBC Charlotte that a witness' photo taken moments after the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott shows a gun at his feet.

 

[Picaro]

Sure they did, they had the video all this time and only now released it, sure thing. The family has been lying since this started.

Needed time to rush it to some ambulance chaser and get it edited for the SOP lawsuit and big payday shakedown. Baiting police into shooting them is now a big business for these idiots.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I watched the video and cant see a damn thing, please be specific and explain how it proves he didn't have a firearm. Just because she is saying he doesn't have one doesn't prove anything. And on the video you can not see anything.

Maybe this will help.

Photo released by police claiming gun on ground.

Still from video right after shooting showing no throw down gun on the ground yet.

Did you just jump in this thread without reading it?
The cops would have immediately secured the gun when the guy went down.
She didnt get a clear shot until he'd been on the ground awhile and the cops would have secured the weapon before she got there.

You are assuming there was a weapon to secure!

Remember before the video was released the police CONFIRMED that the photo taken by a "witness" showed the gun on the ground!

Witness photo shows gun at scene, sources confirm

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Police sources confirm to NBC Charlotte that a witness' photo taken moments after the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott shows a gun at his feet.

The photo you reference has police tape in it, that photo was NOT taken moments after the shooting.

 

[edthecynic]

I watched the video and cant see a damn thing, please be specific and explain how it proves he didn't have a firearm. Just because she is saying he doesn't have one doesn't prove anything. And on the video you can not see anything.

Maybe this will help.

Photo released by police claiming gun on ground.

Still from video right after shooting showing no throw down gun on the ground yet.

You do understand that the two are not photo'd at anywhere near the same time, right?

There's police tape in one, non in the other

Exactly, the throw down gun was placed there afterwards! DUH!

 

[Picaro]

[
If it's true it'll be on internet soon enough.
.

That might be the funniest line ever posted on USMB. (unintentionally funny I should note)

Whats funny about it?
I'm out in the garage installing a new bumper on my truck,not inside sitting in front of the idiot box.

Now for a much more important issue raised in this thread than yet another half-wit Darwin Award winner, did the bumper go on okay?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I watched the video and cant see a damn thing, please be specific and explain how it proves he didn't have a firearm. Just because she is saying he doesn't have one doesn't prove anything. And on the video you can not see anything.

Maybe this will help.

Photo released by police claiming gun on ground.

Still from video right after shooting showing no throw down gun on the ground yet.

You do understand that the two are not photo'd at anywhere near the same time, right?

There's police tape in one, non in the other

That's the point!

Which is, that there is no way, other then a plant, for a gun, or another object to be in that position much later?

1. It was lifted from the subject and placed away from him?

2. It's a glove.

That's the point!
The police say it's a gun.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Maybe this will help.

Photo released by police claiming gun on ground.

Still from video right after shooting showing no throw down gun on the ground yet.

You do understand that the two are not photo'd at anywhere near the same time, right?

There's police tape in one, non in the other

If that really is a gun it would support the throw down gun theory.
They wouldnt put up crime tape then return the gun to the original location.

Or the gun was removed from under his body and put aside.

They would have secured the weapon long before putting up crime tape.
Makes me question whether it's a gun in the photo.

The poleece said it was.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nyda...y-article-1.2803052?client=ms-android-verizon

If true that would support the throw down theory.
But in the video you can clearly see something laying on the ground as the women rounds the car.
1.21 to 1.23 of the video.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

[
If it's true it'll be on internet soon enough.
.

That might be the funniest line ever posted on USMB. (unintentionally funny I should note)

Whats funny about it?
I'm out in the garage installing a new bumper on my truck,not inside sitting in front of the idiot box.

Now for a much more important issue raised in this thread than yet another half-wit Darwin Award winner, did the bumper go on okay?

Not done yet.
Stopped to drink a few beers.

 

[edthecynic]

Sure they did, they had the video all this time and only now released it, sure thing. The family has been lying since this started.

Or they waited to release it to use as leverage on the advice of their counsel.
The police will have no choice but to release their own now.

Since they didn't release it until after the police finally showed them their video that took them days to edit, she didn't tell them she had a video to see whether they would alter their videos thinking they were safe to edit them.

So now you claim the government shoots innocents and fabricates evidence against innocents while at the same time you say the government needs to be bigger and more powerful.

You're stuck on stupid.

You gotta just love the opportunalism of the racist Right, if they can't justify the murder of a black man by the police, they pounce on the opportunity to blame the "government."

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I wasn't paying attention to the Cop in the red before. Easily missed. But people gotta be dicks about it.

Like muttering stupid jive ass lingo and sniggering with your fellow deplorables rather than paying attention? That kind of dick?