We were told time and time again that Keith Scott, killed by Charlotte Police Officers last week, did not have a firearm. His wife even said it on the video she released. Um, yeah, about that (via Twitchy)
Less than a year ago, #KeithLamontScott's wife filed for a restraining order. This was part of the form. Details on @TWCNewsCLT at 5. pic.twitter.com/Fmk7LjRkxT
— Jenna Barnes (@Jenna_Barnes) September 26, 2016
Huh.
(Gaston Gazette)  On Oct. 5, a Gaston County District Court judge granted his wife a temporary restraining order. The court order told Scott not to go near his wife, three of their children and the children’s schools.
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.â€
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.
Now, in fairness, officers apparently did not call in to run a check on Scott prior to the interaction, per Bob Owens, who is also discussing this development. The gun found at the scene had the hammer cocked and the safety off. I have to wonder if any of the officers were familiar with Scott and his extensive history of violence and threats of violence, including with a gun? As Bob notes
I sincerely wish Mr. Scott hadn’t smoked marijuana in public while brandishing a gun while waiting to pick his son up from the bus stop.
Think on that one.
Scott was barred by law from owning a gun due to being a convicted felon. The gun itself was stolen, and he had been carrying the stolen, illegally carried gun in an ankle holster. While getting high. While waiting for his kid at a bus stop.
Doesn’t fit Teh Narrative®.
This is how gun control works! You have a man who was not legally allowed to possess a firearm, due to a prior felony conviction, and the police were notified that he was armed. That should have resulted in a warrant to detain and search Mr Scott, and arrest him for felony possession if he was armed when detained. Obviously, that never happened.
Let’s tell the truth here: we only “enforce” the prohibition on convicted felons possessing firearms once we catch them using those firearms in another crime. Then we add another charge to the list, but don’t do anything about it otherwise.
You forgot the immediate call for all law abiding citizens to have their guns confiscated and the end to non assault assault style weapons. Cause they’re black. And scary.
Statements on an Order of Protection aren’t corroborated and don’t have to be true. The Order itself proves nothing.
Mr. Scott served time in Texas for aggravated assault for shooting a man (who survived) in what Scott claimed was self-defense (the jury didn’t believe him).
Hoagie: Who called for all law abiding citizens to have their guns confiscated? I’m against that!
Jeffrey gets silly:
If someone files an order for protection from a convicted felon, and states that he possesses a firearm, shouldn’t the police at least check to see if he is actually carrying one? Doesn’t that constitute probable cause?