New details emerge that DESTROY liberal narrative on Charlotte

For the past week, rioters have been wreaking havoc all across Charlotte, NC. The riots are in response to the police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, which has been cited as just the latest example of an unarmed black man killed by racist police brutality. Scott’s wife, who filmed the shooting, told police he wasn’t armed and was only carrying a book.

As usual, the shooting’s circumstances are much more murky than those citing this as an unjustified act of police violence would like to admit. Those citing this as yet further “proof” that police are racist should know the officer who shot Scott was black himself. There was, in fact, a gun recovered at the scene, and there was a holster on Scott’s leg spotted in the police dashcam footage.

Turns out, the gun Scott was carrying had been reported stolen after a breaking and entering, according to the police.

As it turns out, Scott has a history of violence, and there’s no reason to think he wouldn’t have used his firearm if he had the chance. In fact, Scott had previously served time in prison for firing a gun at a police officer.

As recorded in the video of the incident by Scott’s wife, she’s heard telling officers that he wasn’t armed — which we all know was a lie — a calculated lie. As Steven Crowder reported:  Here’s an additional problem to the growing list of narrative busters: last year Mrs. Scott told the police her husband DID have a gun. A gun she claimed he would shoot her with.

And this was apparently a regular occurrence…

He was not allowed near their Gastonia apartment they’d called home since April 2014, according to court documents. He was told to turn over a black 9mm handgun he owned illegally.

Eleven days later, Rakeyia Scott voluntarily dismissed the order against her husband, writing, “He is no longer a threat to me and my family.” But three days before she got the order, Keith Scott had kicked her, punched their 8-year-old in the head three times and threatened to kill her with the gun, she had written.

“He said he is a ‘killer’ and we should know that,” she wrote. She said the man she’d been married to since she was 18 did not have a gun permit and was a felon, having been incarcerated from April 2004 to April 2011. She checked a box saying her husband had threatened her with the gun before.


No one is saying that Scott deserved to die. But is it really unreasonable to think that the man who has a record of firing at a police officer and threatening his wife with a gun before may have not acted in the best way around police? And, furthermore, that police may have had reason to fear him?

The next question that needs to be asked is why his wife told officers that he wasn’t armed, when he clearly was — both figuratively and literally disarming the officers as they interact with a known dangerous man.

[Note: This post was authored by The Analytical Economist]

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of