According to Police Chief Kerr Putney his narratives have changed a many of times, so at this point his statements are just not credible enough to me and more so seem biased in favoring his fellow officers.
It is unclear or not as to whether Keith Lamont Scott actually had a gun, so I’m gonna use a scenario and theory in what I believe could have happened if a gun was present.
First I want to present you a screenshot of what appears to be an ankle holster according to what the Putney said was retrieved at the scene.
In this picture it appears to be holstered as there is a minor like weight advantage at the top leaning to the right.
So my question is…
Was Scott EVER holding a gun in his hand?
Or did Police retrieve a gun from Scotts holster?
A question I have not heard the media ask thus far.
This to me is a crucial part of the investigation.
I have not heard Putney advise the media as to whether that gun in question was holstered at the time of the shooting, only that he could not tell if Scott was holding a gun or not!
So are the possibilities that Scott was holding a book? a gun? or was the gun was holstered? should come into play.