support those claims and when questioned on some of these issues, this witness referenced someone s claim in a youtube video and it became apparent he incorporated information he heard from other sources. investigators also went to his home to examine his vantage point. and what they discovered is it would have been very difficult if not impossible to make those observations due to the obstruction of a tree and the positioning of mr. scott s suv. basically from his apartment, there s a tree and there s the passenger side of mr. scott s vehicle. he would have to see through the tree and through the passenger side to see anything occurring on the other side of the vehicle. two witnesses said they were inside a nearby home and watched the incident unfold. they heard the officer s commands to drop the gun. both indicated they saw something in mr. scott s hand. but they could not identify the object. they had a view but because of
slide of the gun and on the grip of the gun. let me say that again. his dna was found on the slide of the gun and on the grip of the gun. mr. scott s fingerprint was found on the gun when it was examined by the police crime lab. however, the state crime lab did not find that print to be of value, meaning they did not find it to be significant enough to be able to say if it was mr. scott s. there s a reason for that. the police department uses a certain technology, they use that technology, they made the determination when they send it to the state bureau of investigation, they send a disc along with a card, a lower resolution card. the state bureau of investigation has different technology. it s like you sending me something to open on some great program you have and i don t have it, i can t open it.
improve our system so that all community members have complete confidence that they will be dealt with fairly and treated with respect. justice demands nothing less. at this time i will take questions. [ inaudible question ] we do. i would just tell you that he was taking a significant number of drugs and they were for some of them, somewhat mind-altering. reporter: did mr. scott actually raise the gun at any point? he did not raise the gun, to our knowledge, based on the video, any evidence from any statements of officers. [ inaudible question ]
look in his eye, the decision was made to shoot because they didn t know what he was going to do. it s a justified shooting based on the totality of the circumstances. the gun, the gun that when officers come, he draws the gun. he don t keep it in his holster. he don t put on it the floor. he s told to drop the gun. he gets out, doesn t turn to run away from officers, turns toward them with a look, i don t know if it s from medication, i don t know if that s his look, i don t know mr. scott, but assessing, looking at each and focuses back on officer vincent, our determination is that at that time, his belief was reasonable that he was in imminent threat of death or the death of his fellow officers and he was justified in shooting. reporter: follow-up, any medical experts talk to you about that drug and what investigators did talk to medical experts. really, the medical has nothing
phone showed that on september 10th, he and the seller communicated about returning or exchanging a clip at gander mountain because the one he purchased was too short. it wasn t working in the gun. if you see the gun, it doesn t have a clip in it. .380 ammunition was located in mr. scott s vehicle inside a pack of cigarettes in the center console cup holder. in the center console, pack of cigarettes, this is them going through the vehicle where you can see the broken glass. live rounds, .380, to fit the gun. a reading book was not found in the front or back seats of mr. scott s suv. a composition notebook belonging to mrs. scott was found wedged between the center console and the front passenger seat. it did not match the description