Posted on 09/23/2016 9:23:44 AM PDT by SJackson
The black man shot and killed by a black police officer in Charlotte, N.C. Tuesday was a felon who had gone to prison for seven years, making it illegal for him to possess a firearm.
According to records from Bexar County, Texas, Keith Lamont Scott was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in July 2005 and sentenced to seven years in prison. In relation to that case, he was charged and found guilty of evading arrest. He was also charged with unlawfully carrying a weapon, reckless driving, and assaulting his wife, but these charges were later dismissed.
Here is information about the case from the Bexar County Clerk of Court, followed by the list of other charges in Texas:
As reported in the Charlotte Observer (but buried at the very bottom of a lengthy post), Scott also has a criminal history in North Carolina and South Carolina, dating back to 1992. A public records search shows Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and the misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female, and communicating threats.
In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges. Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.
Scotts criminal record is significant in light of police reports that he was carrying a gun at the time of his fatal encounter with a police officer this week. Under federal law (18 U.S.C 922(g)(1-9)), it is illegal for anyone who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to possess a firearm.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police chief told reporters Wednesday that officers have said Scott had a handgun when he got out of his car. When he refused to drop the weapon, thats when officers shot him.
Its time to change the narrative, because I can tell you from the facts that the storys a little bit different as to how its been portrayed so far, especially through social media, Chief Kerr Putney said.
Video footage from a dash-cam of the incident was made available to Scotts family Wednesday. After viewing the video, the family said they wanted the videos released to the public immediately. In an emailed statement, the familys attorney, Justin Bamberg, said, After watching the videos, the family again has more questions than answers.
Bamberg said it was impossible to see what was in Scotts hands, and that he was slowly walking backwards when he was shot.
Despite reports from sources within the department that say the video shows Scott with a gun, Putney also said he cant see Scotts hands well enough to determine whether he was holding a weapon.
The angle in which hes standing, I cant see his hands, Putney told CNN. Therefore, I cant see a weapon in his hands or him pointing a weapon that would be in his hands. I cant see, based on the angle, that definitive piece of visual evidence that I need.
However, Putney said, a gun was found at the scene beside Scott.
We have various statements that he had the weapon, that he wouldnt drop it, after repeated verbal commands, Putney said. At the incident, there is a weapon recovered right there in close proximity to the subject.
When Megyn Kelly of Fox News asked Putney Thursday night if he had any doubt that Scott had a gun, the police chief said even though it would be good to have video evidence, sometimes thats not enough.
Theres a lot of other evidence that I cant speak to further, he said. The State Bureau of Investigations, an independent investigative body, has taken over. I really cant speak to the investigation further, but theres a lot of other evidence that gives us a great deal of support and comfort that the version that you heard from us before is supported by the evidence. . . . that version is still very much accurate.
When Kelly asked him about fingerprints on the gun and whether it was registered to Scott, Putney said thats all very relevant, but he cant speak about it now with the ongoing investigation.
Having a criminal record like Scotts doesnt give police officers license to shoot. However, the facts about Scotts criminal history cast doubt on the narrative that he was a gentle family man who was just sitting in his car reading a book.
Other articles are unclear as to whether there is a felony conviction in his long criminal record, but if the Federalist is correct, he was shot while committing a felony.
Felons doing felonious things often don’t come to a happy end....
Arrest the judges who let this thug out!
Time served in prison means he was convicted of a felony. In this case, it was a violent felony.
Hey, don’t interrupt the media and Black narrative with facts! Facts don’t have any place in the narrative when Blacks, Dems and the media want to use an incident for their own benefit.
Carrying a weapon is not a crime; the second amendment to out Constitution says so. Using one in a criminal manner is another story. That is what the prosecution or lack thereof should be based upon.
This guy was caught with a gun some 4-5 times in 2002-3. In the 90’s he had a weapon more them once plus a number of charges like weapon with intent (bodily harm /kill etc.). This he is just a great peaceful pillar of the community and/or he was reading a book is Fantasy Island. The deceased was a hard core career thug.
A convicted felon cannot have a gun.
Now, now, you all know those were trumped up charges by racist white cops. Poor guy was just trying to turn his life around.
Where in the second amendment is that specified?
OOPS, missed the ITAL OFF.
The Second Amendment is silent to that. Title 18 USC is much different.
file:///C:/Users/jcpot/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/974Q2ENM/Primer_Firearms.pdf
I’d throw his own book at him!
If they had been tougher on him for his offenses, he might still be alive (in a cell.)
Whether he had a gun, could or could not legally have a gun makes no difference.
This incident and every one of the others in recent memory have one thing in common.
Refusal to obey the officer. Some of the shootings could be classified as questionable but even those started as the offender disobeying the cop.
Is there a suicide/martyr tone in the black community ?
Why in the world would a man, ordered out of his car get out with a gun or anything in his hand?
The officer tells you to get out of the car, put your hands on the roof, don’t move. Simple.
Even the incident in Tulsa. The perp walks back to his car hands in the air. But the last few seconds he lowers his hands to the car window. WRONG!
The question is, was the window up or down?
Either way he got an officer antsy.
An interesting discussion, but it is the law and the courts have upheld it as a reasonable restriction. Personally, I'm OK with violent felons, non violent felons who are no threat to self or others, not sure there's a compelling reason to restrict their ownership
Yes. Or if out might have thought twice before committing a felony by being in possession of a firearm.
Correct. A concealed carry permit doesn't grant you permission to disobey an officer's orders. Including an order to "drop" your weapon.
Why in the world would a man, ordered out of his car get out with a gun or anything in his hand?
Indecision about using it to avoid arrest? I heard the tape released by his family today, and on it his wife(?) screams at the police, but also screams at him, "Keith don't do it!" Several times. Don't do what?
Even the incident in Tulsa. The perp walks back to his car hands in the air. But the last few seconds he lowers his hands to the car window.
I'd speculate in the Tulsa incident the individual was high and hadn't a clue what the officers were saying to him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.