bring a person in a blue uniform in front of the courts. but with that said, to your point, ari, hereby we are goin through surveillance video of mr. scott before his officers. we don t know very much about what the officers were doing before their interaction with mr. scott. the point is, they were there seveni ing serving a warrant on someone else. we re being told they noticed mr. scott rolling a marijuana cigarette and then it starts to escalate from there. from a decision not to be bothered with a minor offense because they re not there for that reason, to somehow being in this confrontation with this man whose physical demeanor now we know he was medicated for a number of years related to some type of accident, and that medicine was found in his system, the toxicology report also showed marijuana, but this idea he had a crazed look, that s very similar to what we heard in the shooting incident in oklahoma.
when considering imminent threat, it s important to consider the response time and reaction time. the reality is that mr. scott could have raised his gun and killed officer vincent or another officer before any of them could have reacted to the threat. reaction time studies dealing with police shootings provide valuable insight for the analysis of this shooting and these studies are cited in the report. those studies show that in these scenarios the result is a tie, at best. even officers in a position of ready, watching somebody, if they re armed with a gun to their side, by the time they do this, the reaction from officers has to be from the brain to the trigger finger and the studies say it is tie at best. when considering i m sorry. i think there s a misconception out there about the scope of the review in the d.a. s office. this office did not examine whether an officer followed cmpd
back and then stand there. kind of unusually. other people other officers start tending to mr. scott. he is standing there awkwardly. in mr. scott s video you can see an object between his feet in the same place where we see the firearm and body-worn camera footage from another officer who responded to the scene just after the shooting. he stands there, you can see something, you don t know what it is, an officer comes up immediately afterwards with body cam. he is going the officers tell him clear the car. you can see him going to the car to look to make sure there s nobody else in it. the cars are cleared and it s his body cam, it s clearly detected, officer standing over the gun. mr. scott s dna was found on the
law enforcement personnel. interesting way to describe it. what stands out to you legally? i think what stabs out here is you had a case where the policing was not ideal. i don t think that you could defend this as ideal police work because of the way they converged on the car. because of the perception caught on multiple vehicles, both police video and citizen video that there was an escalation. not ideal or negative police work doesn t mean it s criminal. that is what the d.a. is investigating. so what you saw in that presentation, viewerses would have been forgiven for thinking that mr. scott was on trial. although he is the deceased in this situation. we ve seen this pattern play out before. where there s a tremendous amount of incriminating information offered by the d.a.s to justify why the shooting took place. k the bottom line, though, is the legal justification offered in the d.a. s view was there was a gun on the scene. the gun they believe was either
investigative file. we think that we will see information in there that perhaps they didn t. we re going to continue to look at other aspects of the situation, and we look forward to some day obtaining justice for keith and his family. i think mr. kur hi a couple remarks he d like to make, and then we ll can everybody please introduce themselves. yes. attorney edwa wrd oward o wruar the family of keith scott, sill devastated about his loss. it s a painful situation that can t be covere up, and they are going to have to learn to live with his absence. we are still in the process of investigating this case. standards are different, as attorney monette has said, and what we ask is that the public withhold any judgment that they