Report: Man shot by Charlotte police had prior record of SHOOTING AT POLICE

Of course, we’re having to hear about this outside of the drive-by media: 

According to a story in The Christian Times, who they claim verified with The Charlotte Observer, Keith Lamont Scott had a two decades long history of gun violence, including an arrest/conviction for shooting at police officers in Texas.   The New York Times has previously reported on his troubled past but not the 2005 shooting at police incident:

(Via NYT) […] According to court records, Mr. Scott was born in South Carolina, was about six feet tall and weighed 230 to 250 pounds. While living in South Carolina in the 1990s, he was charged with a number of offenses including check fraud, aggravated assault and carrying a concealed weapon. Later, he moved to Texas where he shot and wounded a man in San Antonio in 2002, for which he was convicted and sentenced, in 2005, to seven years in prison. He was released in 2011. (link)

The Charlotte Observer also reported on Scott’s extensive criminal career –SEE HERE– and we did independently identify a criminal record in Texas – SEE HERE – which aligns with all of these reports.

nc-riot-19-keith-scott(Via Christian Times) Keith Scott had a long police record that included gun violations. Christian Times Newspaper has learned,and it has been confirmed by the Charlotte Observer, that Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County, and other charges were dismissed: including felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, assault on a female, and communicating threats.  Scott was also charged with assault with intent to kill in 1995.  [ Texas Arrest Record Here ]

The most shocking find in Scott’s record, however, is what occurred in Bexar County, Texas in 2005.  In March of that year, Scott was sentenced to 15 months in state prison for evading arrest, and in July, he was consecutively sentenced to seven years on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Sources are now coming forward and alleging that those two separate convictions are in fact related, and they both have to do with a confrontation between Scott and Bexar County Police in early 2005.

One source, who asked CTN to refrain from using her name to protect her identity, told reporters that Scott fired a handgun at San Antonio police officers when they attempted to detain him in February 2005 after noticing that he was driving erratically.  (Scott had a history of drunk driving, according to court records).

Allegedly, as the officers approached Scott’s black Ford sedan, he fired two rounds from the driver’s seat and then sped away.  Neither of the officers was hit, and they proceeded to give chase and detain Scott several blocks away.

While Scott did leave the gun in his passenger’s seat when he attempted to run on-foot, he did, according to our source, assault one officer by punching him in the face.

[…]   If accurate, those reports when combined with the eye witness who took pictures of the handgun dropped by Keith Scott when shot by police officers (see […] below), the account of the Charlotte police department appears to be validated.



12 thoughts on “Report: Man shot by Charlotte police had prior record of SHOOTING AT POLICE

  1. The drive-bys are in the pocket of the Democrat Party. We know not to expect honest or accurate news from them, only spin. No wonder less than a third of Americans trust the American media these days, according to the Gallup poll, and most of those are hard core Democrats who probably don’t know the difference between the party line and actual news.

    Now that a Republican governor has gotten involved, order has been restored. The liberal Democrat mayor turned down state police help the night before, and Charlotte paid a price for that. She was probably concerned that state police would support the state’s bathroom privacy laws, eliminating which seems to be her overarching policy goal.

  2. I’ve sent this link to several friends – thank you for printing. Mainstream media is run by liberals so we’re not getting unbiased reporting. Thank God for the internet and sites like this to keep us well informed.

  3. So, you wonder why there is rioting in NC and not in OK? You would think a shooting that was not as justified would be where BLM would riot, but it is in NC where the shooting was totally justified and done by a black guy. Could it be because NC is a must have swing state for the democraps? It really sucks to be targeted by all these radicals trying to bring an end to civilized society.

    1. The evil money man behind the vast left wing conspiracy, George Soros, is the money behind Black Li(v)es Matter, so everything they do is politically calculated. But I think this one may blow up in their face.

  4. tired of the media saying the protesters are peaceful. peaceful would not have a whole city trapped in their homes under a curfew not allowed to leave these people are not exercising their free speech these protesters are terrorists. They are reigning terror on the law abiding citizens of this city and they are stealing from all the workers that are losing income from lost hours of work downtown and in other areas of the city

    if they are so upset with things maybe they should have voted for a republican city council / mayor and county commission because leftist polices do not work for society

    1. They are involved in an insurrection inspired by leftist revolutionary George Soros. That insurrection should be suppressed by whatever means necessary.

  5. I think we do a disservice to patriots by calling them main stream media or drive by media. The are socialists propagandists intent on fomenting a civil war. Best to call a spade a spade

    1. To clarify. I meant calling the socialists mainstream not patriots. We are in the opening stages of a civil war between the slavery of socialism and the free citizens

  6. Brant, I’m going to spit hairs but I think it is a significant point…

    It’s clear that when the SC police officer shot a man who was running away, and when the Albuquerque police shot a crazy man who’d been camping in the rocks, the dead men were “victims” of the police shootings (indictments followed in both cases). However, in a case where evidence points to a justified case of a LEO killing a man in self-defense, I suggest “victim” is an implicit suggestion of helplessness on the part of the shot and criminal action on the part of the shooter.

    In a story where the very essence of the point you’re making is that Scott was no peaceful, loving bookworm, the word “victim” is not the descriptor you should apply to him. Officer Vinson, the man who had to shoot the career criminal? Yes, a victim of Scott’s behavior. The business owners suffering losses in the riots, and the taxpayers of Charlotte? Yes, victims, but Keith Scott likely was not.

    Perhaps a title like, “Man Shot by Charlotte police had prior record of SHOOTING AT POLICE,” would have better conveyed your intent?

    1. Lets split more hairs

      The guy running from the cop in charleston could have had a gun. He could have taken someone hostage with that gun. So that fact that the cop shot him while he was trying to flee could have saved lives. The cop used his judgement and could have prevented a worse situation. The guy we a criminal for the fact when pulled over he ran and when that happens that makes you pretty guilty.

Comments are closed.