Select Page

Keith Lamont Scott Had Threatened Wife With Gun

Keith Lamont Scott Had Threatened Wife With Gun

Photo Courtesy:  @Jenna_Barnes

The Keith Lamont Scott shooting in Charlotte has been an emotionally charged case for the City of Charlotte and the Country.

Scott has been painted as an innocent victim that the police planted a gun on but not only is the evidence overwhelming that he threatened Charlotte Police with a gun but now a document has surfaced that revealed his violent past including threatening to kill his wife with a gun and that law enforcement should consider him a threat.

[sc name=”Article Mobile Ad” ]

As the Gaston Gazette reported, Scott’s wife obtained a temporary restraining order about a year prior to the fatal incident:

“On Oct. 5, a Gaston County District Court judge granted his wife a temporary restraining order. The court order told Scott not to go near his wife, three of their children and the children’s schools.  He was not allowed near their Gastonia apartment they’d called home since April 2014, according to court documents. He was told to turn over a black 9mm handgun he owned illegally.”

Further details about the restraining order include that he said he was a “killer” and a box was checked saying that Scott had threatened her with a gun.


About The Author


Law Officer is the only major law enforcement publication and website owned and operated by law enforcement. This unique facet makes Law Officer much more than just a publishing company but is a true advocate for the profession.


  1. Alan

    First of all, a persons propensity for violence DOES come into play in regards to this incident. If a person had threatened his wife with a weapon in the recent past, he is a violent person and that is not going to change when he is dealing with the police, especially in this political climate.

    Second, no matter what happened, the officers are innocent until proven guilty. It doesn’t matter that the video does not prove conclusively that what the officers say is true. It would only matter if it proved conclusively that what the officers say is a lie. They, like any other citizen, are guaranteed the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. From the video provided by his wife, there IS a reason to believe he was armed or why else would she be telling him “not to do it”. Those statements combined with the fact that her own video shows what appears to be a gun laying near his body is pretty compelling evidence proving that the man did have a gun, that he was ordered to drop it by the police, that his wife told him not to do it and, that he was not carrying a book as his family claims because, unlike the gun, there is no book visible in the video where it would have dropped if his family was right.

  2. ahaz

    Unfortunate for the readers of this site, none of this victim’s past history has nothing to do with the actions of the officers who shot him that night. Either he was a imminent threat or not. So far we have the police narrative and videos that don’t conclusively reinforce their narrative. But the shooting is just a trigger, like the Freddie Gray breath in Baltimore and Mike Brown in Ferguson. Apparently there have been tensions between the police in that city going on since the injured college football player was killed by police. Police that we somehow exonerated for their unwarranted fears. That’s why the protests and unfortunate rioting.

    • Harry Stamper

      You say “unwarranted fears” but you were not there and, I am assuming, you are not a police officer. If you were not in the position to be attacked by a much larger person as was the case in the Mike Brown shooting, where the evidence clearly indicates Brown had been inside the car, leading far more credence to the accounts of the officer over many of the supposed eye witnesses who’s accounts were proven false, how can you determine that his fear was unwarranted when he felt he needed to fire his weapon to prevent further attack. As for the Scott tragedy, because I believe all loss of life is a tragedy regardless who is to blame, why would fear of a man armed with a gun and refusing lawful commands by cops to drop the gun, be considered unwarranted? You still cling to the claims of his family that he did not have a gun, yet more recent accounts and photos indicate that he was in fact armed. Exoneration is what occurs when innocent parties are wrongly accused. Yet you claim that this is why protests and “unfortunate rioting” occur. I believe in protesting to address a wrong but that does not seem to be the case here. Your downplaying about the horrible nature of rioting is truly disturbing. It doesn’t just happen; it is created by criminal acts of people who feel the need to let go of reason and decency in favor of terror and violence: destroying property, committing violent acts against others, stealing for personal gain. Those are not “unfortunate” acts. Those are horrific, criminal acts that denigrate your supposed cause into an example of deplorable human behavior. Too many people are calling for a violent response and too few are trying to fix what they believe is broken.

Training At The Next Level

Recent Video

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from Law Officer.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Share This