It doesn’t jive’: Ex-LAPD sergeant slams Charlotte police’s story about killing Keith Scott

[womanofthehills]

“The video is not conclusive with regard to what the officers’ statements are,” Dorsey said. She said that she did not observe any “furtive movements” on Scott’s part, nor any evidence of criminal activity serious enough to warrant the officers leaving their previous post, donning police vests and moving in for an arrest.

“This thing could have been handled so differently,” she said, explaining that the officers who left their surveillance position should have radioed for a squad car and maintained their position and cover.

She went on, “I don’t smoke marijuana and I don’t roll joints, but I do know that all that activity happens in your lap. So I’m not sure how these officers were able from their position seated in their car to see Mr. Scott rolling a joint and then conclude that’s criminal activity occurring that’s so egregious and outrageous that they need to leave their post and deal with that.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/it-doesnt-jive-ex-lapd-sergeant-slams-charlotte-polices-story-about-killing-keith-scott/

[Egnever]

1. That is exactly the kind of stupid interview that made me look so closely at the videos

None of what she is claiming the videos don't show happened in any of the videos because the videos didn't cover any of the time period she is talking about.

And which is it they left their post or they were sitting in their car.

Grrr fucking media sometimes.

[unblock]

2. I take surveillance to mean their post *was* sitting in a car

Not entirely clear, but possible

[Egnever]

3. I was wrong

Last edited Mon Sep 26, 2016, 01:59 AM - Edit history (2)

The Statement released by the police did say they were in their vehicle. It also said that Mr. scott pulled up next to them and parked. Not hard to see someone rolling a blunt parked next to you or to smell it for that matter. And parked next to you, you could certainly see a gun if it was in view in the vehicle.

They were not in cars they were in SUV's you can see them in the video filmed by the Mr. Scotts wife. Not hard to see inside another SUV from an SUV. The spot he was parked in in the video looks like a three car space with the white truck in one end space and Mr. scotts in another. The only empty space would have been right next to him.

The cops SUV is heavily tinted(you can see that as well in the video) if they were pulled in facing forward and he backed in a cop in the back seat would have been able to see him pretty clearly.

that still leaves this nonsense

She said that she did not observe any “furtive movements” on Scott’s part, nor any evidence of criminal activity serious enough to warrant the officers leaving their previous post, donning police vests and moving in for an arrest.

There is no video that I am aware of that would show any of what is bolded, so that statement is just thrown out there based on nothing.

What in the world is she talking about here?

The Supreme Court, Dorsey said, “has told us that a black man does not have any right that a white man must respect.

I missed that supreme court ruling. Maybe there is one but I have no clue what she is talking about there. I would think or at least hope there would be a massive outcry over any ruling like that.

and then this gem

I don’t smoke marijuana and I don’t roll joints, but I do know that all that activity happens in your lap. So I’m not sure how these officers were able from their position seated in their car to see Mr. Scott rolling a joint and then conclude that’s criminal activity occurring that’s so egregious and outrageous that they need to leave their post and deal with that.”

Again seated in an SUV next to him it would be trivial to see all of that. Pot plus weapon and the cops would be shirking their duty if they did not investigate.

[pnwmom]

4. If a driver is parked right next to you and doing something in his lap,

then the driver's door is going to obscure what he's doing in his lap. You might be able to see the empty passenger seat, but your angle wouldn't be good for seeing in the driver's lap over the car door.

Go sit in a car and try it if you don't believe me.

[Egnever]

5. Been there done that

Seen plenty of people rolling joints next to me.

[pnwmom]

6. You might be able to see IF your vehicle was higher than the one next to you, and you

were in the passenger seat.

But not if both vehicles were the same height, parked side by side, and you were in the driver's seat looking at the other driver. And if one or both vehicles had tinted windows, that would further obscure the view.

[uponit7771]

11. Again, how did they know it was a joint vs tobacco !?!! Because they thought isn't a reasonable

... reason

[Egnever]

14. Have you ever been around pot?

Just curios pot doesn't look or smell anything like tobacco.

[uponit7771]

16. Yeap, plenty of it with no aroma and some tabocoo that smells like pot... this LEO would get torn

... apart in court if he claims he can tell the difference and reacted because of what he "saw" vs just asking for ID

[Egnever]

20. This Leo going to walk easily

Some with no aroma is such nonsense I can hardly believe you even tried to put it forward.

I smoke pot every single day and have pretty much for 39 years. I can't remember one single batch that had no distinctive aroma when smoked.


If you have to go to pot not smelling like pot it is pretty clear you are pulling excuses out of your butt.

I get you don't want to believe it but this guy had a gun and he refused to drop it.

The police made this situation happen but it doesn't change the fact they had every reason to confront him and he could have easily been alive if he had just dropped the gun any one of the twelve times we have the officers on tape telling him to do so.

[uponit7771]

21. 1.) He wasn't smoking the pot so it's a strawman to intimate that he was via your own example, 2.)

... 2.) SOME UNLIT tobacco DOES smell like UNLIT pot, I've smell enough of it to know too, 3.) as I've said before I'm not giving the CPD the BOTD because they haven't earned it, 4.) the fact we agree the police made it happen places the onus on them IMHO, not Scott...

and 5.) the LEO will walk because American society does NOT place much value on black lives... period... I have no doubt in my head BECAUSE OF THE EMPIRICAL FIGURES that if this person was white they'd have a BETTER CHANCE of being alive right now.

BLM no doubt

[Egnever]

41. The blunt is half smoked

Again I get the outrage I really do and I share it this shooting did not have to happen. The excuses you are throwing out to make it fit your idea there was no gun however stretch any semblance of reality. When you start having to pretend pot doesn't always smell like pot you have gone so far off into CT territory no reasonable person is going to agree with you.

The leos will walk because he had a gun and refused to drop it. That is it. Full stop. No jury is going to buy what you are selling here when the evidence to the contrary when taken as a whole is so compelling.

Sadly the requirement for a justified shooting is not a person pointing a gun at the cops it is simply the cop fearing for his life . Mr Scotts refusal to drop the gun is all that is needed to justify it and the evidence that he did have a gun is very compelling, while the evidence against relies on we didn't see it clearly in his hands in the video and pot smells like tobacco.

[uponit7771]

46. The Chief said he was rolling a blunt not smoking one so there goes the LEOs reasoning for engaging

... Scott in the first place seeing NC is open carry and the LEO doesn't know if its tobacco or pot.

Also, someone on another site has mentioned the CPD has NOT come out and explicitly said there was a gun in Scott's hand

the Chief said that at first but then backtracked.

This whole thing is fucked up, they should release the vid of the initial contact and stop bullshitting people

[Lee-Lee]

49. He was rolling when they first spotted him

So partially smoked after they left and returned makes perfect sense.

Seems like a model citizen. Convicted felon with an illegal gun sitting there getting high while waiting for his daughter, so he can drive her home stoned with his illegal gun in the car. And his wife said he had just taken a sedative, so add another chemical impairment to his driving with the daughter in the car...

Father of the year right there....

[uponit7771]

52. There's no account of Scott Smoking anything (quote inside) and he could have had multiple

Joints in the car, there's no police accounting that he was smoking anything when they came back to confront him.

Upon returning, the officers again witnessed Mr. Scott in possession of a gun. The officers immediately identified themselves as police officers and gave clear, loud and repeated verbal commands to drop the gun. Mr. Scott refused to follow the officers repeated verbal commands.

Mental gymnastics would be to add "... and was smoking weed too..." into that narrative

Too many LEO positive assumptions here

[Egnever]

50. Oh lord

Ok you run with that. I don't for a second think any reasonable person is going to buy it when presented with all the evidence against it but it is certainly your right to believe it.

Someone mentioned on another site..

He absolutely was in possession of a handgun,” Putney said. “There was no definitive visual evidence that he had a gun in his hand and that he pointed it at an officer. That I did not visually see in the video ... When [my officers] see a weapon and they see the marijuana they say ‘uh oh, this is a threat to the public.’”

Is not saying explicitly he had it in his hands. But it is saying there is no definitive video of it being there. not even close to the same thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/keith-scott-shooting-video_us_57e6c40ee4b0e80b1ba25df1

[awoke_in_2003]

12. Did they

deserve to be executed?

[Egnever]

15. Not in my opinion

But then he could have dropped the gun as well.

[uponit7771]

17. There's no photo evidence of a gun that has been shown, people aren't giving the CPD unearned BOTD

[Egnever]

19. You have to do mental gymnastics to believe that

[uponit7771]

22. This is false, there's been no photo evidence that Scott had a gun in his hand at the time of the...

... shooting and I'm siding with the citizens of CLT in regards to their belief of the CPD

[tonyt53]

27. Those "citizens" you speak of are his family. Their actions were very peculiar.

Lots of bad cops and Charlotte has had plenty of issues with some, but this is one time that they are being blamed for something that another person could have prevented. Some are denying that there was an ankle holster, but it is clearly in the photos. Some are denying that he had a gun, but there was one, with his prints and DNA all over it. A gun that was cocked at that. For the cops to have planned all of this would have taken telepathy, as they were very clear in what they were saying. Scott escalated what would have been a simple citation, and likely no arrest by his actions. To say that the cops should have listened to his wife indicates a real disconnect between reality and a dream world. When a person has a gun in their hand, and they are being told to drop it, but they refuse, the world slows down and the outside world becomes silent. One the no gun in his hand thing, can you say absolutely that he did not have a gun in his hand? Pretty small pistol and a guy with large hands. For cops to have walked past Scott, as he sat there rolling a joint and with a visible gun, is rather incredulous. Scott panicked. He wasn't supposed to have a gun and NC isn't a pot smoke when you want state. He knew he was going to jail and he panicked. That is why his wife kept saying "Keith don't do it". No voice change, just steady speech.

[uponit7771]

29. No, the people who were protesting ... Tulsa didn't blow up, DFw didn't blow up and other

... cities that didn't blow up were it looked like a bad shooting

LA, Ferguson, Baltimore etc blew up and the DOJ goes in and finds systematic racism and oppression.

[tonyt53]

37. Not talking about those cities and those circumstances. Talking about Scott and Charlotte.

Tulsa - murdered by a cop. Ferguson - murdered by a cop. Baltimore - murdered by cops. Charlotte - killed because of his actions. There really is a big difference in the instances I listed. You can choose to ignore some pretty damning evidence against Scott, but i choose to keep an open mind. Not going to make excuses for Scott or the cops.

[Egnever]

39. Again that requires mental gymnastics to believe at this point

You can see the ankle holster in the videos. There is never a clear picture of his hands but to believe he didn't have a gun in his hands you have to dismiss the fact that his pant leg is pulled up exposing the ankle holster. Why was that ankle holster exposed if it wasn't to pull out the gun.

The gun appears on the ground within seconds of the red cop leaning over him. Yes you could pretend it was planted but that happened so quickly as for it to be near impossible to pull off. The cop in red had his own weapon in his hand that means in the 3 or four seconds he leaned over him he planted a gun. Sorry just is not plausible.


Then again there is the ankle holster. Now you are going to have to pretend the cop had a gun that just happened to match the ankle holster strapped to Mr. Scotts leg. You already had to pretend that the ankle holster was just there for fun with no gun to go with it this just brings another layer of difficulty to the no gun scenario.

If not for the ankle holster I would find the planted gun idea much more plausible though still fairly unbelievable(gun appears too quickly for a guy with one hand occupied by his own gun to pull off) . With it I think it becomes undeniable.

Sadly I think what you are doing is looking for an excuse to believe he did not have one when there is nothing to suggest he didn't and everything to suggest he did.

I am open to him not having a gun I just don't think you can make a convincing argument that is true. Meanwhile there is all kinds of evidence you can point to that suggests he did. Add to the mix that this is not the first time this guy has been in contact with the police and had a gun involved and I think you stretch all credulity to believe he did not have one this time as well given all the evidence that suggests he did and none that suggests he did not.

None of that takes away from the act that I believe the cops forced this situation to happen with their actions. Something that has been repeated so many times now it is clear there is a problem with police training.

[uponit7771]

40. Ad homs are an indicator of a weak position. THERE'S NO PHOTO EVIDENCE OF A GUN IN HIS HAND

[Egnever]

42. you are claiming pot smells like tobacco and my position is weak?

[Lee-Lee]

8. They were in SUV's, he was in a car

Passenger SUV seat to car drivers seat it is easy to see.

[Egnever]

18. Actually both were in SUVs

You can see two unmarked SUVs and he clearly gets out of one.

That said according to the statement he parked next to them.. if you look at the video you can see an empty parking spot next to his SUV.

I still think it would be trivial to see what he was doing .

You can see he backed in to his spot. So he was sitting on the side the police would have been parked. Also it certainly was not a lone cop there were certainly two of them in the vehicle he pulled up next to.

[brett_jv]

7. Not to make light of this senseless killing, but the WORD IS 'JIBE', NOT 'JIVE', for the Love of Dog

[Lee-Lee]

9. So many problems

Different agencies, different procedures and SOP's as far as who makes an arrest and if they should have made the arrest or radios for someone else. She is assuming everyone does or should operate the same way she learned at LAPD.

They were in SUV's, he was in a car. Easy to see in when he pulled up next to him. Just bad luck and crappy situational awareness on his part.

Furtive movements are not required to meet the reasonableness standard for use of force against a noncompliant armed suspect. In fact waiting for them can prove deadly as there have been scientific studies showing a person with a gun down by side like that can raise and fire faster than an officer already with a gun aimed can detect that movement, process it in the brain, make the decision to fire and pull the trigger. Human reaction time isn't instant, and a person holding a gun like he appears to be can get a shot off in under four tenths of a second.

She also clearly doesn't have a clue how the law works with regards to open carry of gun laws in NC and should probably keep her commentary on the law to the state she was trained and worked in, as she gets that wrong too.

[uponit7771]

10. +1, Not only that but how did hey know it was a joint vs plain tobacco !?!??! and having a gun in

... NC is not illegal

[snooper2]

13. Number of joints rolled in cars vs tobacco cigs are around 147,908 - 1

[Atman]

24. I actually know quite a few people who roll their own cigarettes.

The kit is available at any grocery store. It's kind of a hipster thing to do, although the victim here certainly didn't fit the description of a hipster.

[uponit7771]

30. specualationt, I know people who roll cigs and the smell of unlit tobacco is similar to unlit MJ

[snooper2]

31. I don't know when the last time you got some kind was

But I'll hold you up to a blind smell test

[uponit7771]

33. Same, I'll have some unlit tobacoo and unlit MJ and have you smell it from a car with its windows

... rolled up and see how well you do.

Come on... people... they had no reason to engage him in the first place

[Lee-Lee]

35. A visible gun and what appeared to be visible drugs

Is more than enough reason to engage him in NC.

I was a deputy in NC for many years, and I am very familiar with what constitutes reasonable suspicion. Those two items together are a sure fit for further investigation and any judge in the state would agree.

Sure, the defense would try to use the same arguments you are. I've seen in court the "it could have been tobacco rolled up and not marijuana" and I've never seen that defense work. Because it goes on the reasonable person/cop standard and everybody knows that 95-99% of the rolling papers sold get used for marijuana and a reasonable person will assume to a high likelihood a person rolling one up isn't rolling up some artisanal tobacco blend, so that alone is enough reason to engage him. If it turns out he was rolling tobacco it's still a legitimate contact because the overwhelming odds point one way.

Been there, done that, watched the silly defense you are making fail every time even in front of the most liberal judges we had.

The sighting of the gun just seals the legitimacy of the decision to contact.

You can keep making this absurd argument, but it's not grounded in reality.

[uponit7771]

47. Tobacco is not a drug

[Egnever]

43. It was not unsmoked pot there is a pic of the half smoked blunt.

[uponit7771]

48. Strawman, the Chief of police said he was rolling a blunt not smoking it. (link inside)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/24/read-the-charlotte-police-report-on-the-fatal-shooting-of-keith-lamont-scott/?utm_term=.42101f189fce

The officers observed the driver, later identified as Mr. Keith Lamont Scott, rolling what they believed to be a marijuana “blunt.” Officers did not consider Mr. Scott’s drug activity to be a priority at the time and they resumed the warrant operation. A short time later, Officer Vinson observed Mr. Scott hold a gun up.

Because of that, the officers had probable cause to arrest him for the drug violation and to further investigate Mr. Scott being in possession of the gun.

[Egnever]

51. now photos are straw men

do you really not see how hard you are trying to twist reality to fit your narrative?

[uponit7771]

54. Nope, I'm going off my lying eyes ... the claim is the strawman

[tonyt53]

53. So, you openly admit that he had pot and the cops ignored it until Scott showed the gun.

Bigger question arises " why did Scott show the gun?". After than, things went downhill. The cops had something else to do and ignored a guy rolling a joint. That says they didn't have time to huddle and say "let's kill him and plant a gun". Scott knew than when they ran a report on him, that he wasn't supposed to have a gun, and he was going to jail.

[uponit7771]

55. Of course he had pot, they showed it... I'm not claiming he didn't my position is the LEO didn't kno

... know he had pot at all seeing the mechanics of rolling a cig and pot are the same.

The LEO assumed it was pot... that was stupid

[Atman]

23. My thoughts exactly. He was in a truck. How did they see his lap, or what was on his seat?

It doesn't make any sense. They were doing undercover surveillance, yet they blew cover to confront a guy rolling a doobie? This whole thing doesn't make any sense.

[jmg257]

28. Rolling a doobie and holding a gun supposedly.

[uponit7771]

32. Neither have been criminalized in NC, under a half ounce in NC MJ isn't a high crime and NC is open

... carry

[jmg257]

34. Ah interesting - thanks for that info! Certainly affects reasonable cause then.

[Lee-Lee]

36. Not really

It's still a crime to possess any amount, and the combination of drugs+gun gives every bit of reasonable suspicion needed to stop a person.

[jmg257]

38. Ok - thanks for THAT info. nt

[EX500rider]

25. Rolling joints does not happen entirely in your lap..

.....you hold the joint up to your mouth at some point and lick the paper...

[Solomon]

26. And you do the same when rolling

a cigarette.

[Egnever]

44. is that really your argument?

they shouldn't have engaged because it might have been a cigarette? You honestly don't see how silly that is?

No Jury is going to buy that.

[Egnever]

45. excellent point