CHARLOTTE, N.C. – The District Attorney wisely declined to charge Charlotte-Mecklenburg Officer Brentley Vinson with a crime after he was forced to fire upon a black suspect, 43-year-old Keith Lamont Scott, who was armed with a handgun according to the investigation.
Vinson, who is also black, was cleared in the Sept. 20 shooting death of Scott because the shooting was deemed justified, according to Charlotte-Mecklenburg District Attorney Andrew Murray.
“It is my opinion that Officer Vinson acted lawfully when he shot Mr. Scott,” Murray said, speaking at a lengthy news conference Wednesday. “He acted lawfully.”
Murray confirmed Scott had a .380 semi-auto handgun with one round chambered at the time of the shooting reported the NY Post.
This case was stacked against Vinson from the beginning, including implicit media bias, so it is refreshing to see a prosecutor resist misguided public pressure. CNN aired an edited version of a video that omitted officers ordering the suspect to drop the gun. Police are heard ordering Scott to drop the weapon no fewer than nine or ten times in the unedited version.
LET reported the deceptive edit in a feature that included both versions of the video.
Once the anti-police momentum picks up steam, facts become irrelevant and the public decree presumes guilt as demonstrated by some in this case.
Now we have more protesters taking to the streets of Charlotte. Thank goodness the people violating the law are being arrested. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police identified four people taken into custody during Wednesday night’s protests in uptown Charlotte.
The demonstrations came on the heels of the DA’s decision not to file charges against Vinson. Landon Rice, 22, Eleanor Everrette, 16, and Ngogloan Tran, 21, were each arrested for obstructing traffic. James Marsicano, 23, was arrested for obstructing traffic and resisting a public officer.
All four are scheduled to appear in court Thursday afternoon reported WCNC.
Sadly, as local media interview marching protesters, they remain ignorant, or blind to the facts of the case. Their arguments have an emotional appeal that are not based in rational thought. It is one thing to protest perceived inequities in the system, but using the circumstances of this case is misguided.