Initial police statements to the public on such matters are often defensive in nature, and can be notoriously unreliable, as can be eyewitness accounts as well. In this case, did eyewitnesses actually see Scott brandishing a firearm -- or are their reported statements reflective of the actions of police officers themselves, who were clearly yelling at Scott to drop his weapon?

With regards to Scott's reported resemblance to the person CMPD officers were hunting for, given the well-documented history of racial profiling of African Americans by police in general, that particular convenient and self-serving claim by officers may yet prove to have not been worth the breath taken to say it.

With regards to Scott's alleged "violent criminal past," unless the officers involved were actually and contemporaneously aware of both Scott's identity and his reported felony conviction, it's an irrelevant point, albeit an ex post facto one which is once again conveniently self-serving to the police, from the standpoint of media and public relations.

Why is it an irrelevant point? Because IF the officers DID in fact know who Keith Scott was, then I would offer they had absolutely no business even approaching him in the first place, since he was quite obviously NOT the man they were actually seeking at the time.

The police and the media can't have it both ways here. They can't initially claim that Keith Scott resembled another person of interest which thus justified officers approaching him, and then use Scott's alleged criminal record as further justification for their own violent armed response to his allegedly brandishing a weapon. The second claim would require the officers to possess prior knowledge about Scott's identity and past, which logically and immediately undermines their first claim.

Some civilian bystanders reported seeing Mr. Scott w/a gun.

In an open carry state, that isn't a crime.

Finally.

If Madame Sec pulled a Chris Christie at the UN press conference oh so long ago, and answered every question until they could think of no more, then this might have ended.

Eleven hours, under oath, on live TV.  The questioners were not the press, but her political adversaries, all of whom hated her.  Most people would consider that response on Hillary's part "...answer[ing] every question until they could think of no more."

Just so we're clear, since eleven hours of answers is obviously not enough to meet your standards, how much MORE than eleven hours would you consider sufficient for Hillary to "answer questions?"

1.  It's laughable.  The wingnuts are still trying to tie to Vince Foster and a half dozen other CTs.  Nothing she says would have stopped them.  But nice try at trying to put the blame on her.

2.  Immunity agreements - "unthinkable"?  You think so?  Please feel free to share your credentials in law enforcement/prosecutions.  What a lay person with no background or evidence "feels" is irrelevant.  Particularly one with a bias/agenda.

This thing just won't die. It just appears that the law for Madame Sec is different than it is for anyone else.
Nothing ever is released upfront, and the FBI, with another Friday afternoon document dump, is losing any credence that it was a search for the truth.
There are way s to find evidence other than grant immunity, you issue grand jury subpoenas. And then , after immunity, they still take the 5th. Mind boggling.