
After the family was confronted with the pictures of the gun, they insisted that Scott did not own a gun.
Moreover, it is now being reported that Scott was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in 2005. He shot and injured a man in San Antonio, Texas after firing more than 10 rounds from a 9-millimeter pistol. In addition, in October 2015, Scott’s wife, Rakeyia, filed for a restraining order against him and stated in her petition that he was a threat he carried a 9-millimeter gun. He also reportedly threatened to kill the family.
As I have indicated in past coverage, the police have a strong presumption in their favor given the existing facts. If Scott was armed and clearly refused to comply with police orders, he could be seen as a sufficient threat for the use of lethal force under Tennessee v. Garner. The contradictions over Scott’s owning a weapon and his possession of the gun at the shooting strengthen the case for the police and, assuming these facts remain uncontroverted, would weaken any potential criminal prosecution.
