Riots result when witnesses lie about a cop shooting a black man


Why would they do that? Why would they lie? Is it because they think that it gives them more ammunition in their war against “racist” police?

Most don’t really realize it, but they’ve been conditioned to respond that way. It’s predicated on the “us versus them” mentality that democrats, leftists, and groups like Black Lives Matter (BLM) have been pushing to inner city blacks for years. It’s also the reason for not providing any assistance to the police during criminal investigations; the black activists characterize cooperation with police as selling out and being a traitor to their race.

The shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in September by a Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police officer is a prime example of what happens when police are involved in the shooting of a black man. District Attorney Andrew Murray just released his report (November 30, 2016) on the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott by Police officer Brentley Vinson. It details his findings and is well worth the read. You can view his entire report in .pdf format HERE.

The report illustrates that many so-called witnesses not only didn’t actually see what they described, but they weren’t even at the scene. They were just repeating a narrative that was circulating around the neighborhood – a narrative that was probably started by someone with an ax to grind, most likely black activists, and designed to inflame the passions of the Charlotte black community.

What the witnesses were doing was literally “bearing false witness.” They were lying to influence public opinion and they should be prosecuted for it.

We already have enough problems with trust between blacks and whites without introducing any additional (artificial) narratives that just widen the trust gap. The only people who benefit from increasing distrust are the black activists like BLM.

Following are some of District Attorney Murray’s key findings from his report:

  • All of the credible, available and believable evidence supports the conclusion that Scott was armed with a gun. That evidence includes DNA, an admission by the seller who illegally sold Scott the Colt .380 semi-automatic that was recovered at the scene, and pre-incident radio traffic in which officers can be heard discussing that they saw Scott with a gun. Investigators also located convenience store surveillance footage taken just minutes before the shooting that corroborates Scott’s possession of an ankle holster and a weapon.
  • According to the evidence presented, Scott drew a gun from his ankle holster when confronted by officers. Scott then exited his vehicle with the gun in his hand. Video evidence shows that officers commanded Scott to drop the gun at least 10 times. Scott failed to comply with those commands.
  • Officer Vinson is the only officer who fired his weapon, and he is the officer who shot Scott. He admitted to the shooting from the onset, and firearm analysis found that the shell casings recovered at the scene were fired from his gun.
  • Investigators interviewed a number of civilian witnesses who reported seeing the incident. Some of these witnesses gave conflicting statements, as well as statements that are unsupported by video or physical evidence. Three of these witnesses claimed on social media or in media interviews that Scott was unarmed, but the N.C. State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) later determined they had not actually seen the shooting.
  • The SBI found no evidence that Scott was reading or possessed a book when he encountered law enforcement. The SBI also found no credible indication that evidence had been “planted” or altered.
  • A police officer or any other person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believed, and in fact believed, that he or another person was in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death. Someone with a gun in his hand who does not comply with police commands to drop the gun can be reasonably considered to be an imminent deadly threat to officers, and reaction-time studies show that a person can raise his gun and harm or kill officers before an officer could react to the threat. It is lawful for an officer to take action before it is too late to repel a deadly attack.

As stated in the report, several people who claimed to be witnesses to the shooting were not actually witnesses. Yet they still went to the media making false reports, which played a part in spurring violent protests with accusations of racism against the police department and the City of Charlotte in general.

One woman who claimed to be a witness, Taheshia Williams, gave Al Jazeera an interview after the shooting, in which she said, “I actually saw the shooting.” She claimed that Scott didn’t have a weapon, that he had his hands up and was asking police, “What is the problem? What did I do? What’s wrong?” And then, she said, he was “shot by a white, bald-headed police officer.” Officer Vinson is actually an African American.

Williams told reporters that “Scott had a black book and that she saw Scott step over the book — with his hands raised — after it fell from his lap.”

However, when SBI interviewed her, she said she did not see the shooting and that “she was sitting on the couch, watching television, with the volume turned up loud and never saw Keith Scott until she went outside her apartment after the shooting.” So, nothing she told the media was true.

Hers was a glaring example of people wanting to influence others to join in a figurative lynching of a policeman doing his job. Her description wasn’t even close to what actually happened.

Other people who claimed to be witnesses had similar recantations.

This includes Scott’s 18-year-old daughter, Keirra, who streamed “a public video on Facebook under the profile ‘Lyric Adorable Scott.’ In the video, Keirra claims her father was shot by a white officer wearing a red shirt.” She also said he was reading a book. Keirra’s mother later confirmed that the girl was not even present during the incident.

Scott’s wife, Rakeyia, also perpetuated falsehoods, which were exposed by the investigation. She claimed Scott never owned a gun, yet investigators found text messages between her and Scott in August that included an argument about his possession of a firearm (Scott was a felon, which made it illegal for him to own a gun).

At the time of the incident, Rakeyia said: “four white officers fired their weapons.” She also said that Officer Vinson was not involved in the incident because he was too far away. Both statements are factually untrue.

The wife also said Scott was not violent and hadn’t been since November 2015. However, “medical records demonstrate that Scott had ongoing difficulties with aggression and anger management. Scott was battling an array of psychiatric disorders, including depression, anxiety, hallucinations and paranoia. Two weeks prior to his death, Rakeyia Scott told her husband’s therapist that his temper and impatience had increased, and as she stated, ‘something has to give.’”

Finally, contrary to reports in the media that police officers had planted a gun at the scene, SBI “determined there was no credible evidence found to substantiate the ‘planting’ or altering of any evidence.”

This incident, much like the Michael Brown one in August of 2014, was intentionally mischaracterized by many who came forward as “witnesses.” They were more interested in disparaging the police than with what actually happened. It becomes hard to accept testimony provided by a black “witness” when so many turn out to be total fabrications.



Categories: Political


4 replies

  1. Great job on this post, Garnet!

    Every culture and subculture develops general attitudes towards honesty and the rights of others, and certainly the urban minorities have done so. The only way to fix it is to hold these people to the same standards of behavior that everyone else has to follow through the application of consequences, but the liberals won’t allow it. As is usually the case, the Left is the root of problem.


  2. Sheesh, so many lies and it gains them nothing. I think you nailed it, Garnet – they’re conditioned. They’re raised in it, surrounded by it, and for all the earlier efforts to do away with racism, we’ve had a president that stoked the fire and now we have to start all over. It will be much harder to do this time, because they don’t listen to reason.


    • Exactly, it’s become part of their lifestyle – it’s to be expected. Obama did really miss a chance to go down in history as a towering figure if he could have risen above his black racism, but he blew it and caused far more racial divide than he fixed. He just couldn’t overcome his own personal racism.


Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: