COSTCO shooting of Eric Scott Coroner Inquest [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : COSTCO shooting of Eric Scott Coroner Inquest


dmacker
09-22-2010, 19:48
"Costco employee Colleen Kullberg took the stand late Wednesday and said she saw Scott as he was confronted by police outside the store. She says she saw Scott pull his gun from his waistband and aim it at officers before being shot.

Owens, a doctor treating Scott, alluded to Scott's longtime battle with drugs and mental illness as the possible catalyst for the incident.

"Abuse of street drugs, bipolar disorder, chronic depression he was trying to treat with use of painkillers, suicidal ideations and one comment, 'It's literally a matter of time before my faking it at work is going to show,'" said Owens."

The above testimony at the public coroner inquest into the shooting sheds a different light then the image of a West Point and Duke graduate with a great career and the world by the tail impression of Scott put forth by his family and friends after the shooting by police.

The inquest is being broadcast live on KLAS and began today. It is expected to last all week with about 22 witnesses to take the stand. Scotts father released a list of approximately 30 drugs he said his son was taking.
Three doctors have taken the stand and testified that some of the drug levels in Scotts system were at lethal levels.

The family still insists that Scott was murdered by the police. So far the evidence does not support that accusation. It will be very interesting how this all shakes out.

TBO
09-22-2010, 19:50
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1267270

Keith5579
09-22-2010, 21:28
Dmacker, can you post a link to this story?

Patchman
09-23-2010, 03:39
His own physician said all that about his mental state? His own family provided a list of 30 medications he was taking at the time? I can wait another week or so for the entire inquest to shake out.

Patchman
09-23-2010, 03:58
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13113874/new-details-surface-in-police-shooting-victim-erik-scotts-past?redirected=true

and

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/coroners-inquest-erik-scott/

Kadetklapp
09-23-2010, 08:00
Well, well, well!

goldenglory18
09-23-2010, 08:30
SHOCKING!!!!


:rolls eyes:

The-Fly
09-23-2010, 16:32
I've learned to hold my opinion when stuff like this happens until there's a cool off period and the full story comes out.


And this case (and the way the public reacted to it) is the perfect reason why I do so.....

Kegs
09-23-2010, 16:51
Owens, a doctor treating Scott, alluded to Scott's longtime battle with drugs and mental illness as the possible catalyst for the incident.

"Abuse of street drugs, bipolar disorder, chronic depression he was trying to treat with use of painkillers, suicidal ideations and one comment, 'It's literally a matter of time before my faking it at work is going to show,'" said Owens."

The above testimony at the public coroner inquest into the shooting sheds a different light then the image of a West Point and Duke graduate with a great career and the world by the tail impression of Scott put forth by his family and friends after the shooting by police.

The inquest is being broadcast live on KLAS and began today. It is expected to last all week with about 22 witnesses to take the stand. Scotts father released a list of approximately 30 drugs he said his son was taking.
Three doctors have taken the stand and testified that some of the drug levels in Scotts system were at lethal levels.

The family still insists that Scott was murdered by the police. So far the evidence does not support that accusation. It will be very interesting how this all shakes out.

So this is the spin now?

Edited to say I Just read the second link. I still believe this is the primary cause of this incident:

Combat zone training for police = very unfortunate overreaction.

What a disappointing mess.

Pepper45
09-23-2010, 17:16
So this is the spin now?

Edited to say I Just read the second link. I still believe this is the primary cause of this incident:

Combat zone training for police = very unfortunate overreaction.

What a disappointing mess.
How nice. With your expertise, opinions, and information, shouldn't you be testifying at the inquest?

Dukeboy01
09-23-2010, 17:37
I still believe this is the primary cause of this incident:

Combat zone training for police = very unfortunate overreaction.

What a disappointing mess.

"Costco employee Colleen Kullberg took the stand late Wednesday and said she saw Scott as he was confronted by police outside the store. She says she saw Scott pull his gun from his waistband and aim it at officers before being shot."

I didn't know that shooting people who were pointing guns at you was a tactic that you only learned in combat zone training. I also didn't realize that shooting someone who was already aiming a gun at you or another person was considered an unfortunate overreaction.

Oh, wait. It's not anywhere in the real world. It's only considered an overreaction by supercool operators who graduated from Chairborne Ranger school.

Please, feel free to enlighten us more.

Napalm561
09-23-2010, 17:57
:popcorn:

Patchman
09-23-2010, 17:57
Combat zone training for police = very unfortunate overreaction.

:rofl::rofl::rofl: Now that's funny. Your avitar shows you in "tactical" style pants shooting combat style. Hope you're not one of those do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do people. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

dmacker
09-23-2010, 19:36
"Dr. John Pierce is director of the Ageless Forever Preventative Medicine Clinic. Pierce's name surfaced in a blog written by Scott's father, William, who indicated his son received legal growth hormones and bioidentical hormones under Dr. Pierce's care.

Dr. Pierce says being ex-military himself, he would have remembered meeting Scott, but he says he never did.

"I want to make it clear, first off, that Mr. Scott has never been a patient of mine. I have never met him professionally or personally," he said. "If he had a prescription with my name on it, I don't know where he got it."

Scott's girlfriend, Samantha Sterner, who was shopping with him the day he died at Costco, used to work at the Ageless Forever clinic. Dr. Pierce says she was terminated in June or July of last year."

In looking for answers to this tragedy of circumstances, could this have been the source of some of his narcotics and the reason for her termination. Another doctor testified that he terminated Scott as a patient because he had doubled up on his pain medication in violation of the doctor's directions.
Scott's father said he was injured in parachute training but there has been no other indication of a military disability. It also sounds like he had told his girlfriend that he was a Green Beret. Could this all be a case of Murphy's law.

Kadetklapp
09-24-2010, 07:10
"Dr. John Pierce is director of the Ageless Forever Preventative Medicine Clinic. Pierce's name surfaced in a blog written by Scott's father, William, who indicated his son received legal growth hormones and bioidentical hormones under Dr. Pierce's care.

Dr. Pierce says being ex-military himself, he would have remembered meeting Scott, but he says he never did.

"I want to make it clear, first off, that Mr. Scott has never been a patient of mine. I have never met him professionally or personally," he said. "If he had a prescription with my name on it, I don't know where he got it."

Scott's girlfriend, Samantha Sterner, who was shopping with him the day he died at Costco, used to work at the Ageless Forever clinic. Dr. Pierce says she was terminated in June or July of last year."

In looking for answers to this tragedy of circumstances, could this have been the source of some of his narcotics and the reason for her termination. Another doctor testified that he terminated Scott as a patient because he had doubled up on his pain medication in violation of the doctor's directions.
Scott's father said he was injured in parachute training but there has been no other indication of a military disability. It also sounds like he had told his girlfriend that he was a Green Beret. Could this all be a case of Murphy's law.

Oh snap! Boosted a script pad it sounds like!

Patchman
09-24-2010, 08:01
Yeah, and I've said this previously, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the gf is a pill head who enjoyed the cornucopia of his medicine cabinet. But it wasn't street drugs, and they're good looking clean cut upper middle class white america with a CCW, so a certain segment of society more than willingly turns a blind eye.

RussP
09-24-2010, 11:07
Oh snap! Boosted a script pad it sounds like!:popcorn:

AZLawDawg
09-24-2010, 11:46
I didn't know that shooting people who were pointing guns at you was a tactic that you only learned in combat zone training. I also didn't realize that shooting someone who was already aiming a gun at you or another person was considered an unfortunate overreaction.

Oh, wait. It's not anywhere in the real world. It's only considered an overreaction by supercool operators who graduated from Chairborne Ranger school.

Please, feel free to enlighten us more.

exactly.

AZLawDawg
09-24-2010, 11:48
The problem is the bad, evil, terrible, trigger happy police, were too inept to see the halo that comes with every CCW permit.

Kadetklapp
09-24-2010, 12:05
The problem is the bad, evil, terrible, trigger happy police, were too inept to see the halo that comes with every CCW permit.

One State Fair Queen/CCW banner could have prevented this-

http://www.dsmsafety.com/ccwprod.jpg

Patchman
09-24-2010, 14:50
Here's a summary of today's inquest.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/

My conspiracy theory regarding the gf's failure to appear at the inquest is that it was the butler with the candlestick, in the library. Remember I said it here, first.

AngryBassets
09-24-2010, 15:21
So this is the spin now?

Yes, leave it to pesky witnesses, toxicology reports and testimony that he was a manipulative addict diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses to spin things in the favor of the police.

Edited to say I Just read the second link. I still believe this is the primary cause of this incident:

Combat zone training for police = very unfortunate overreaction.

Yes, the police shooting insane drug addicts pointing guns at them are clearly the "primary cause" of this incident. WTF is "combat zone training, btw?

What a disappointing mess.

Your post certainly is.http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn192/TacticalFats/Forum/idmo.gif

steveksux
09-24-2010, 16:41
I didn't know that shooting people who were pointing guns at you was a tactic that you only learned in combat zone training. I also didn't realize that shooting someone who was already aiming a gun at you or another person was considered an unfortunate overreaction. .

What about someone who's aiming a gun at you, but is planning to turn his life around?

Oh snap! Mission accomplished! Pointing a gun at cops is a great way to make a major lifestyle change all right!

Randy

steveksux
09-24-2010, 16:46
Have to say though, who hired Officer Curley in the first pic of the set in the middle???? :rofl:

http://images.art.com/images/products/regular/10204000/10204551.jpg

Randy

Mayhem like Me
09-24-2010, 17:33
soightenlee nyuck nyuck!

Zut
09-24-2010, 19:44
Facts are pesky things...

beatcop
09-24-2010, 20:06
Ahh, the typical nonsense posted herein...

-conspiracy theorists who will claim 9/11 was a hoax
-mental deficients with the IQ of a potato
-cop haters

If it walks like a duck....

Sharky7
09-24-2010, 20:26
I can't imagine what it would feel like to be Ofc. Mosher right now. He made a split second decision and what sounds like the right decision from this inquest. Not only does he have to deal with his own hell of thoughts and emotions of ending someone's life.....but he has to put up with all this nonsense too. Hopefully he hangs in there.

dmacker
09-24-2010, 20:39
Yeah, and I've said this previously, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the gf is a pill head who enjoyed the cornucopia of his medicine cabinet. But it wasn't street drugs, and they're good looking clean cut upper middle class white america with a CCW, so a certain segment of society more than willingly turns a blind eye.

Now that she has refused to testify at the hearing we can only wonder.
I'm sure the family attorney didn't want her talking under oath.
Of course we heard her statement to the police on the day of the shooting.
She said that Scott was a Green Beret and just back from Iraq.
Sounds like she might have been drinking his cool aid.

So far after three days of the hearing it still looks like a good shoot.
Everything that happened the guy brought on himself.
He is beginning to tarnish the shinning West Point image.

The people on the live blog are for the most part only embarrassing themselves with their comments.

use2b6L32
09-25-2010, 00:01
It's starting to sound more and more like Scott had some pretty severe "issues" and that Costco kind of precipitated the shooting. Also, it sounds like LVMPD didn't adhere to standard best practices, but, it seems like the shoot it's self was good.

CBennett
09-25-2010, 08:12
Shocking what happens when people, instead of jumping to the "obvious"(or NOT so obvious in this case) he was gunned down in cold blood" conclusion, let the full story come out...now starting to look more like the guy was a pure NUT or suicide by cop by a NUT.

OLY-M4gery
09-25-2010, 08:36
It's starting to sound more and more like Scott had some pretty severe "issues" and that Costco kind of precipitated the shooting. Also, it sounds like LVMPD didn't adhere to standard best practices, but, it seems like the shoot it's self was good.

Really? What are you saying should have been done different.

Be specific.

Detectorist
09-25-2010, 10:28
How nice. With your expertise, opinions, and information, shouldn't you be testifying at the inquest?

:rofl:

It looks more and more like the drugs took over his thoughts. It's a shame all around. However, once Scott pulled a gun, the Officer really doesn't have the time to acertain that he is on drugs, suicidal, bad day at work, etc.

No, I'm not a cop, but it's common sense that if you pull a weapon on an Officer, he's not going to be nice and ask you about your home life, or what else is bothering you.

use2b6L32
09-25-2010, 16:01
Really? What are you saying should have been done different.

Be specific.

They told Costco to evacuate the store (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/) and they confronted Scott at the entrance to the store, with dozens of people around.

Ofc. Mosher told Scott to take out his gun and put it down (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/erik-scott-day2/) (Scott's gun was holstered at the time he was told that).

Those are for starters. I don't have time to look up the rest.

TBO
09-25-2010, 16:42
They told Costco to evacuate the store (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/) and they confronted Scott at the entrance to the store, with dozens of people around.

Ofc. Mosher told Scott to take out his gun and put it down (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/erik-scott-day2/) (Scott's gun was holstered at the time he was told that).

Those are for starters. I don't have time to look up the rest.
That is what is known as an "embellishment", which is a really nice way of saying "lie".

Patchman
09-25-2010, 17:08
Ofc. Mosher told Scott to take out his gun and put it down (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/erik-scott-day2/) (Scott's gun was holstered at the time he was told that).

Those are for starters. I don't have time to look up the rest.

Wish as you may, your representation is complete BS and a lie. When third party commentators like yourself begin lying about published news accounts, I recommend you give it up. Yes, I know there's a whole bunch of you yahoos on GT who'll think nothing about lying and misrepresenting facts, but that doesn't make lying and fabricating misrepresentations right, so thanks for nothing. Thank god for those few who are willing to draw the line in the sand and call you on your lies, day and night. Truth? You can't handle the truth.

Yes, truth is tedious and bothersome and time consuming.

use2b6L32
09-25-2010, 17:33
Wish as you may, your representation is complete BS and a lie. When third party commentators like yourself begin lying about published news accounts, I recommend you give it up. Yes, I know there's a whole bunch of you yahoos on GT who'll think nothing about lying and misrepresenting facts, but that doesn't make lying and fabricating misrepresentations right, so thanks for nothing. Thank god for those few who are willing to draw the line in the sand and call you on your lies, day and night. Truth? You can't handle the truth.

Yes, truth is tedious and bothersome and time consuming.

Apparently they didn't teach you how to read, in the academy...

Here, I'll do the hard work for you, since you're too lazy to do it yourself:
Mosher said he saw Scott had bloodshot eyes. He told Scott to show his hands and to put his weapon down twice, but Scott wouldn't comply, he said.
Scott responded by pulling out his gun, Mosher said. Mosher saw the gun being raised in his direction.


Since you probably have a reading-comprehension problem too, what that said was that Ofc Mosher told Scott to put the gun down and then Scott took the gun out. Then Mosher shot him.

use2b6L32
09-25-2010, 17:39
That is what is known as an "embellishment", which is a really nice way of saying "lie".

So how/where did I lie?

Patchman
09-25-2010, 18:07
Apparently they didn't teach you how to read, in the academy...
Here, I'll do the hard work for you, since you're too lazy to do it yourself:
Since you probably have a reading-comprehension problem too, what that said was that Ofc Mosher told Scott to put the gun down and then Scott took the gun out. Then Mosher shot him.

Thank you for "doing the work for me." Yeah, OK. Now back to reality. I'm sure you read this: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/25/erik-scott-inquest-day4/ So you discounted the testimony where a witness said she called police to provide testimony "after seeing reports that some people claimed Scott didn't have a gun, when he did" and "he had anger in his eyes", and also other witnesses testified that he appeared "just mad about about the whole situation." etc, etc, etc, etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,.....

Thanks again so much. :upeyes:

use2b6L32
09-25-2010, 18:22
Thank you for "doing the work for me." Yeah, OK. Now back to reality. I'm sure you read this: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/25/erik-scott-inquest-day4/ So you discounted the testimony where a witness said she called police to provide testimony "after seeing reports that some people claimed Scott didn't have a gun, when he did" and "he had anger in his eyes", and also other witnesses testified that he appeared "just mad about about the whole situation." etc, etc, etc, etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,.....

Thanks again so much. :upeyes:


No, I didn't. I gave you Mosher's own words.

Plus, I don't think that there's any question that Scott "had a gun". Not a single person has disputed that. This whole thing is about the fact that he "had a gun".

Like I said: Reading Is Fundamental...

And, you're welcome.

Patchman
09-25-2010, 19:05
No, I didn't. I gave you Mosher's own words.

Plus, I don't think that there's any question that Scott "had a gun". Not a single person has disputed that. This whole thing is about the fact that he "had a gun".

Like I said: Reading Is Fundamental...

And, you're welcome.

Had TWO guns. Ready to use them. Again, thanks for presenting the full facts. One gun-two guns, what's the difference, right?

use2b6L32
09-25-2010, 19:31
Had TWO guns. Ready to use them. Again, thanks for presenting the full facts. One gun-two guns, what's the difference, right?

Again, Reading Is FUNDAMENTAL.

The second gun was never even found until he was in the ambulance. Dead.

What the above sentence means (I'll spell it out for you) is that the officers never even knew about a second gun until the medics found it on him, in the ambulance. After he was already dead.

Anything else?

Patchman
09-25-2010, 19:36
Oh boy. You're dense. Thinking is fundamental. Or do you have full blinders on? He knew he had two guns on himself. Did he carry two guns to balance the weight? Duh...

cowboywannabe
09-25-2010, 19:55
you usually have something intelligent to add, but what happened here?:upeyes:

So this is the spin now?

Edited to say I Just read the second link. I still believe this is the primary cause of this incident:

Combat zone training for police = very unfortunate overreaction.

What a disappointing mess.

use2b6L32
09-25-2010, 20:00
Oh boy. You're dense. Thinking is fundamental. Or do you have full blinders on? He knew he had two guns on himself. Did he carry two guns to balance the weight? Duh...

I'M dense? That's rich!


So what if HE knew he had two guns? No one else did. What does the fact that HE knew he had two guns have to do with anything we're talking about?

Specifically, the fact that you called me a liar, when all I did was quote what the cops at the scene testified to, at the inquest?

Chico Bill
09-25-2010, 20:27
Apparently they didn't teach you how to read, in the academy...

Here, I'll do the hard work for you, since you're too lazy to do it yourself:


Since you probably have a reading-comprehension problem too, what that said was that Ofc Mosher told Scott to put the gun down and then Scott took the gun out. Then Mosher shot him.

So you quoted a newspaper blog article that didn't even put the statement in quotations, meaning it's not an exact quote, then said it's the officer's own words...

It's not his words, or at least we have no reason to believe it...I've been quoted in the newspaper before...It's neat to see all the things I didn't know I said.

Why would the officer tell the guy to put the weapon down (what was actually in the article, as opposed to you're interpretive term of "take out his gun"...the quotes mean I'm "quoting" you...) if the guy didn't already have a weapon in his hand? It sounds to me like he probably already had the gun in his hand.

In short...you said you gave us "Mosher's own words"...That's simply not true...so you lied or you're dense. Pick.

use2b6L32
09-25-2010, 23:22
So you quoted a newspaper blog article that didn't even put the statement in quotations, meaning it's not an exact quote, then said it's the officer's own words...

It's not his words, or at least we have no reason to believe it...I've been quoted in the newspaper before...It's neat to see all the things I didn't know I said.

Why would the officer tell the guy to put the weapon down (what was actually in the article, as opposed to you're interpretive term of "take out his gun"...the quotes mean I'm "quoting" you...) if the guy didn't already have a weapon in his hand? It sounds to me like he probably already had the gun in his hand.

In short...you said you gave us "Mosher's own words"...That's simply not true...so you lied or you're dense. Pick.



Riiiiiight...

Nice word-games. You did read the whole blog, right? Most of what everyone testified to wasn't in quotes. Does that mean they didn't say it?

And you did read the paragraph right under the one you cited, right? So if the next paragraph says that Scott then pulled out his gun, that would mean that he didn't have the gun out, right? Why would Scott pull out a gun that was already out?

Thanks for making my point for me.

JSandi
09-25-2010, 23:33
So how/where did I lie?

Its not so much that you didn't lie, its that you didn't stand 110% behind these officer and do your brotherly duty of defending them at any and all costs.

See we have several "Cops" here who think that any and all actions by their brothers and sisters are justified no matter what the rational.

use2b6L32
09-25-2010, 23:44
Its not so much that you didn't lie, its that you didn't stand 110% behind these officer and do your brotherly duty of defending them at any and all costs.

See we have several "Cops" here who think that any and all actions by their brothers and sisters are justified no matter what the rational.



To clarify, I did say that it looked like the shooting itself was probably justified, but that there seems to be liability on Costco and that standard/best practices weren't adhered to by LVMPD.

So I guess that makes me a liar...

Dragoon44
09-26-2010, 00:01
Riiiiiight...

Nice word-games. You did read the whole blog, right? Most of what everyone testified to wasn't in quotes. Does that mean they didn't say it?

And you did read the paragraph right under the one you cited, right? So if the next paragraph says that Scott then pulled out his gun, that would mean that he didn't have the gun out, right? Why would Scott pull out a gun that was already out?

Thanks for making my point for me.

Your problem is you are reading what amounts to a "summary" as though it is direct verbatim quotes presented in chronological order. The fact that he said he had told Scott to show him his hands, and that he had told him to put down the gun then mentions that Scott's only response was to draw his gun does not mean he was telling Scott to take his gun out of his holster.

Patchman
09-26-2010, 06:41
See we have several "Cops" here who think that any and all actions by their brothers and sisters are justified no matter what the rational.

Quite the contrary. There are plenty of threads on GT where some cop did something stupid or illegal, and he/she gets severely bashed by posters who are cops.

In this particular case, plenty of people are doing their very best to attack and vilify the responding officers as killers who shot him for no legal reason. So yes, and only speaking for myself, I'm here to point out that's not the case and that the attacks are unjustified.

If other professions don't have the same camaraderie, you should want to hate us for what we have? :upeyes:

dmacker
09-26-2010, 07:48
You have raised an interesting point not yet dealt with in any forum that I'm aware of.
Whatever Scott was doing with the gun on his right hip no mention has been made of the other gun found on him later.
In my humble opinion if Scott were giving up his weapon he would have given up both.
His defenders say he was handing the gun over to the officer.
What about the other gun he had not yet addressed?
Of course if his intention was to use them he probable would have drawn one.
It's a little hard to draw both at the same time.
I'm more inclined to think his drug induced state caused him to get himself shot.
I can speak for myself and say that in over 30 years LE I never once told an armed suspect to draw his gun and give it to me. I never told anyone to do anything but show me your hands and get down. I just doesn't make sense to tell someone to drop a gun that they don't already have in their hand. And if they draw it's a little late for talking.
I did notice that the hammer was down on his firearm but no mention has been made as to if a round was in the chamber. It is very easy to cock the hammer as you draw the firearm. None of this would have been known to the officer. My greatest concern to date is the choice of where the confrontation took place. It does seem to me that there were way too many innocent people around to risk confronting the suspect at that location.
If I had my choice and if possible I would have waited to better isolate the suspect.
Sometimes that is just not something you can control

steveksux
09-26-2010, 08:14
Its not so much that you didn't lie, its that you didn't stand 110% behind these officer and do your brotherly duty of defending them at any and all costs.

See we have several "Cops" here who think that any and all actions by their brothers and sisters are justified no matter what the rational.

I know I for one, am never so disappointed in the boys in Blue as times like this, where they so blatantly and egregiously have the gall to actually wait for all the facts to come out before lighting the torches and grabbing the pitchforks.

No wonder people hate cops....

Regarding Mosler, Dragoon as usual is spot on and beat me to it.

If a cop told him to show his hands, and drop the gun, seems pretty obvious the sequence of events was

"Show me your hands"
Scott drawing the weapon
"Drop the weapon"
"Bam bam bam"

Anyone seriously thinking the cops ordered him to draw the holstered weapon in order to drop it has comprehension issues unrelated to reading.

Randy

Jester249
09-26-2010, 08:28
So this is the spin now?

Edited to say I Just read the second link. I still believe this is the primary cause of this incident:

Combat zone training for police = very unfortunate overreaction.

What a disappointing mess.

Yeah the cop could have at least allowed him to shoot first..........:upeyes:

Jester249
09-26-2010, 08:35
Apparently they didn't teach you how to read, in the academy...

Here, I'll do the hard work for you, since you're too lazy to do it yourself:


Since you probably have a reading-comprehension problem too, what that said was that Ofc Mosher told Scott to put the gun down and then Scott took the gun out. Then Mosher shot him.

So the officer said show me your hands. Instead the criminal pulls the gun. The officer then tells him to put the gun down twice. Seems almost reckless to me, not shooting right away. But then again, I am a reasonable, prudent person......

Jester249
09-26-2010, 08:39
Its not so much that you didn't lie, its that you didn't stand 110% behind these officer and do your brotherly duty of defending them at any and all costs.

See we have several "Cops" here who think that any and all actions by their brothers and sisters are justified no matter what the rational.

Lookie here!! What we have here is the next chief of police for any one of our big liberal city police departments!!:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Patchman
09-26-2010, 09:02
There's been testimony presented that he was experiencing depression and paranoia. Throw in a cocktail of narcotics and, OK, that explains why he was carrying two guns. And he likely carried two guns all the time, wherever he went, and not just this time to Costco.

In this incident, he knew he had two guns on himself. And figured the cops didn't know that. Since he's ex-military (at least Ranger qualified because all West Pointers complete Ranger school), I assume that because he choose to carry two guns, he's willing to use them both, whenever and however necessary and tactically advantageous to himself. So the only question remaining is, how was he going to employ that second gun?

jpa
09-26-2010, 09:46
That is what is known as an "embellishment", which is a really nice way of saying "lie".

Actually, Ofc Mosher was the one who embellished. He testified he told Scott to show him his hands, he said Scott said "I have a gun" and Scott began to remove it from his waistband. He said Scott started to rock it back as if to aim at him and that's when he shot him. However on the 911 tape of the call from the Costco employee, you can hear him shouting and then the gunshots in the background. He said "Show me your hands! Drop the gun! Turn around! Get on the ground!" Pick a command you'd like me to follow that won't get me shot please because it's impossible to do all of them at once. His response when the DA brought that up was "If that's what's on the tape, then that's what I said."

CAcop
09-26-2010, 09:46
I think someone made a mistake when they read the live blog postings mistaking it for an edited story or an actual transcript. The sentence in dispute here is clearly a mush of two separate actions due to the haste in writing. I'd like to see the video or a court reporter's transcript.

Patchman
09-26-2010, 09:56
Under the circumstances of that day, I see no issues with Mosher's verbal commands, especially given the fast paced flow of events. Perfection is obtainable in a Hollywood sound stage where all the actors are gives their lines to say, and the lines are written, rewritten and re-rewritten and the actors have time to memorize and practice.

Most people, when staring at the business end of a gun, are incapable of saying anything, or only manage to mutter a simple "oh dodo." So Mosher did OK.

mixflip
09-26-2010, 10:06
Why would a trained CCW permit holder and former West Point Army officer...innocently and with no intent to project a image of a possible threat to the officers...reach towards his gun to disarm himself? He had to know better???

I watched the live broadcast testimony here in Las Vegas and multiple witnesses state they saw Erik reach towards his waistband. If he truely was trying to disarm himself or show the cop he was armed or reach for his wallet...he made a HUGE mistake and paid for it with his life.

I am guessing with the level of pain meds he had at the time of death, he was not making clear headed decisions all day.

Just because he had a good job, a girlfriend and had a West Point background...doesnt make him exempt from getting addicted to pain meds and making mistakes. I know a successful attorney that recently got fired because he is an alcoholic and got too many DUI's and got his drivers lic. revoked. There are lots of people walking around that look great on the outside but are a mess on the inside.

Chico Bill
09-26-2010, 10:09
Actually, Ofc Mosher was the one who embellished. He testified he told Scott to show him his hands, he said Scott said "I have a gun" and Scott began to remove it from his waistband. He said Scott started to rock it back as if to aim at him and that's when he shot him. However on the 911 tape of the call from the Costco employee, you can hear him shouting and then the gunshots in the background. He said "Show me your hands! Drop the gun! Turn around! Get on the ground!" Pick a command you'd like me to follow that won't get me shot please because it's impossible to do all of them at once. His response when the DA brought that up was "If that's what's on the tape, then that's what I said."

And I'm sure that you remember exactly everything you say while you feel someone is trying to kill you...

PS: embellishment is to make something look better by "adding" details. He didn't add details, and in fact seems to have forgotten additional orders he gave in an effort to avoid having to shoot this guy. He didn't embellish.

I had a force incident a little while ago...I completely forgot about 10 seconds of the incident until I saw it on video...I guess I "embellished"...Or not.

I gotta say it's just too damn bad some of these tactics and force experts haven't graced law enforcement with their unmatched talents...

Dragoon44
09-26-2010, 10:40
Actually, Ofc Mosher was the one who embellished. He testified he told Scott to show him his hands, he said Scott said "I have a gun" and Scott began to remove it from his waistband. He said Scott started to rock it back as if to aim at him and that's when he shot him. However on the 911 tape of the call from the Costco employee, you can hear him shouting and then the gunshots in the background. He said "Show me your hands! Drop the gun! Turn around! Get on the ground!" Pick a command you'd like me to follow that won't get me shot please because it's impossible to do all of them at once. His response when the DA brought that up was "If that's what's on the tape, then that's what I said."

Anyone with any real street experience knows just how fast things like this unfold. There is nothing in the officers statement that is inconsistent with the way any experienced officer would know how quickly situations like this progress.

The officer was reacting and verbalizing in a situation going down in seconds, it's not like TV that slows everything down so the viewer can keep up and be able to understand what is happening.

If TV showed these incidents at the speed and confusion that these things typically occur the viewer would be sitting wondering "WTF just happened?"

cowboywannabe
09-26-2010, 11:32
Anyone with any real street experience knows just how fast things like this unfold. There is nothing in the officers statement that is inconsistent with the way any experienced officer would know how quickly situations like this progress.

The officer was reacting and verbalizing in a situation going down in seconds, it's not like TV that slows everything down so the viewer can keep up and be able to understand what is happening.

If TV showed these incidents at the speed and confusion that these things typically occur the viewer would be sitting wondering "WTF just happened?"

A-men.

GPalmer
09-26-2010, 12:03
...
The officer was reacting and verbalizing in a situation going down in seconds, it's not like TV that slows everything down so the viewer can keep up and be able to understand what is happening.

If TV showed these incidents at the speed and confusion that these things typically occur the viewer would be sitting wondering "WTF just happened?"
+1 to that, he was issuing commands during a dynamic situation. The officer issued multiple commands and they were probably apropos for the situation as it unfolded. In the time required to speak "Get on the ground" I think most folks starting with their hand on their weapon can draw and shoot.

I don't think the officer would have told him to drop the weapon unless it was out so it should have been even faster for him. And if you don't understand when facing an officer with a drawn gun is dropping the weapon you're holding is the number one priority, well, it's time to thin the herd a bit.

DonGlock26
09-26-2010, 18:27
If TV showed these incidents at the speed and confusion that these things typically occur the viewer would be sitting wondering "WTF just happened?"

No pithy comments? No evildoer painstakingly detailing his entire evil plan?


The cop-haters thought they had a martyr to use as a tool, but it's blown up in their faces.

Dragoon44
09-26-2010, 19:37
No pity comments? No evildoer painstakingly detailing his entire evil plan?


The cop-haters thought they had a martyr to use as a tool, but it's blown up in their faces.

They don't give up that easily, their fall back position in the face of the facts of his history of violence and drug abuse is, "We will never know the truth of what really happened."

They remind me of the black knight in Monty Python and the holy grail.

:rofl:

SheepleNoMore
09-26-2010, 19:50
There have been several versions from witnesses regarding what Mosher said. Most of them vary slightly from the transcript of the 911 call that recorded the audio from the confrontation.

Mosher did not say all of the things attributed to him at one time. Several witness testified that Mosher first said some version of "get on the ground" or "get down". Witnesses testified that ES didn't get down and either told or didn't tell the officer he had a gun. Most witnesses didn't know if ES said anything to the officer. The few witnesses that did hear ES say something don't agree on exactly what words he said. The witnesses do agree that ES didn't want to get on the ground and wasn't compliant with any of the officers instructions.

Additional information regarding ES mental state.

ES and his gf stopped at Customer Service to fill out an application. ES filled out the application and his hand writing was unreadable. His gf then filled out an application for him.

When the Manager approached ES and told him that Costco had a policy prohibiting weapons in the store, ES was confrontational to the point that the manager never got to the point of asking ES to leave. ES got loud and belligerent that he had a CCW and could carry anyplace he wanted. The manager retreated knowing that 911 was being called.

Numerous witnesses have testified that ES eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Numerous witnesses have testified that ES was stumbling and at one point his gf gave him her shopping cart to stabilize himself with.

When confronted by Mosher, ES's gf started yelling to the effect that: He has a CCW, He is a Green Beret (not true), and other remarks.

Oh, and yes, I have listened to the majority of the inquest live. The Sun and Review Journal are offering pretty good summaries, but they do occasionally misstate or omit critical information.

RussP
09-26-2010, 20:29
Interesting thread...

glock192327
09-26-2010, 20:31
Why couldn't he just shoot him in the arm, or shoot the pistol outta his hand?















:whistling:

SheepleNoMore
09-26-2010, 20:38
Interesting thread...

Hey, I'm not the one that got the thread in GNG locked. :tongueout:

Hot emotional topic, inflamed by those that haven't paid attention or don't want the facts to get in the way of their personal biased opinion. :dunno:

:whistling:

dmacker
09-27-2010, 09:30
[QUOTE=glock192327;16050360]Why couldn't he just shoot him in the arm, or shoot the pistol outta his hand?

That's never going to happen!!!

I to have followed much of the live broadcast of this hearing.
As a CCW instructor I was looking to learn more about what happened.
I had listened to the original radio dispatch traffic so I had some idea what the responding officers knew upon their arrival.
I was looking to learn how a person with Scott's background got himself into this situation. As the information seemed to indicate.
As the hearing has progressed we see evidence that could provide some answers.

As to the differing "eye witness" testimony that is to be expected.
Those of us on the job have experienced this. People just see things differently. They see from different angles. Sometimes they feel they see what they were not even in a position to see and testify to the same.
That don't make them bad people. Often they are speaking from the heart.
The end result is that eye witness accounts are just not that reliable.
Often they can't even agree on the color of clothing, height of the suspect and hair color. Investigation has to sort through all of this to get the answers.

Lastly we see the personal bias in each witness testimony.
The pro LE want to tell their story in a light most favorable to the police.
The anti LE want to stress their story with a bias toward the victim and his family and against the police. And there are the cop haters no matter what.
There was even a convicted felon on lifetime parole testifying that he didn't see Scott point a gun at the officer. Could he have been anti cop?

Even in these forums we see the same bias.
I only hope we take this opportunity to learn from each other.
I for one am disappointed to see a forum locked.
As long as we are listening to each other we stand a chance to understand the others point of view.

If nothing else I hope this incident has taught us to not jump to conclusions.
Wait until we have all the information before we close our mind.
To do otherwise may be embarrassing in the end.
Even though as investigators we tend to speculate just to see in the end how close we were to the truth. We too can be wrong.

This whole story may not yet be told we just have to wait to see.

DonGlock26
09-27-2010, 11:13
They don't give up that easily, their fall back position in the face of the facts of his history of violence and drug abuse is, "We will never know the truth of what really happened."

They remind me of the black knight in Monty Python and the holy grail.

:rofl:

They do indeed, and it makes this thread that much better. :rofl:

glock192327
09-27-2010, 11:30
[QUOTE=glock192327;16050360]Why couldn't he just shoot him in the arm, or shoot the pistol outta his hand?

That's never going to happen!!!



Guess I should put my "whistling smilie" closer to my content.
:rofl:

PuroMexicano
09-27-2010, 12:03
hey!!! why did the thread in GNG got locked? Everybody is so nice and level-minded there!!!

OmniscientX
09-27-2010, 12:07
I've been told officers have been trained enough to shoot them in the leg and 1.) they will always go down 2. As they are going down the officer can kick the gun out of the bad guys hand...Or the classic gun shot out of the hand trick. No...not joking. :)

Patchman
09-27-2010, 14:17
I've been told officers have been trained enough to shoot them in the leg and 1.) they will always go down 2. As they are going down the officer can kick the gun out of the bad guys hand...

Well, not to brag, but even today, when I'm within 21 feet of the BG, I can shoot and hit them in either legs (choose a leg), even if they're running, and catch the falling gun before it hits the ground. Hell, when I was in my 20s, that distance use to be 25 yards. Really.

Mayhem like Me
09-27-2010, 14:23
I can shoot my bullet down your barrel and take your gun out of battery...

glock192327
09-27-2010, 14:34
Well, not to brag, but even today, when I'm within 21 feet of the BG, I can shoot and hit them in either legs (choose a leg), even if they're running, and catch the falling gun before it hits the ground. Hell, when I was in my 20s, that distance use to be 25 yards. Really.

I'd say good shootin' if you could hit only the knee, instead of the whole leg. Hell, anybody can do that! Perhaps you should practice....:wavey:

Patchman
09-27-2010, 14:43
As to the differing "eye witness" testimony that is to be expected. Sometimes they feel they see what they were not even in a position to see and testify to the same. The end result is that eye witness accounts are just not that reliable.

Lastly we see the personal bias in each witness testimony.
The pro LE want to tell their story in a light most favorable to the police.
The anti LE want to stress their story with a bias... against the police.
And there are the cop haters no matter what.

Even in these forums we see the same bias.

I totally agree witnesses are unreliable due to physical limitations as well personal/social/political limitations that colour what they "see."

However, some people are better witnesses than others due to training, experience, etc... which helps put things into perspective.



I only hope we take this opportunity to learn from each other.
As long as we are listening to each other we stand a chance to understand the others point of view.

I hope for the best but I cannot see this ever happening. Why? Because posters here are also witnesses. We did not witness the actual event, but we are witnessing what the witnesses are saying they saw. So as witnesses we are also limited by our physical and personal/social/political limitations. We see, hear, and internalize what our biases tell us to.

So unless a poster changes his/her personal/social/political orientation, they will continue to filter what they witness through their social/political lens.

OK, somewhat complicated concept. But in a sentence, posters here are witnessing the witness testimonies and filtering second hand information through our own personal filters.




If nothing else I hope this incident has taught us to not jump to conclusions.
Wait until we have all the information before we close our mind.
This whole story may not yet be told we just have to wait to see.

Admitting personal error or judgement is not weakness.

glock192327
09-27-2010, 14:53
Hey Patch, just for accuracy purposes, I didn't originally post that above, but it doesn't sound too bad, so what the hell, I'll go with it.

Please carry on.........:rofl:

Patchman
09-27-2010, 14:54
And of course there's a HUGE difference between witnessing an event and repeating it, and analyzing what one just "witnessed" to reach a conclusion. To reach a conclusion, that third hand information is being filtered again through the person's personal/social/political values.

Patchman
09-27-2010, 14:57
Hey Patch, just for accuracy purposes, I didn't originally post that above, but it doesn't sound too bad, so what the hell, I'll go with it.

Please carry on.........:rofl:

You'll never hear me claim to be competent with a computer...:embarassed:

Dexters
09-27-2010, 15:05
A witness says there was no time between "drop it" command and shooting. If true, does the talk about drugs make a difference?
http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/25180860/detail.html

Of course the witness is a lawyer so it can not be trusted.

Patchman
09-27-2010, 15:35
When an LEO shows up at a scene with lights and sirens, in a shinny police car, and dressed in full uniform, and observe a person with a gun in their hand, does the LEO have a legal obligation to shout "drop it" or something similar? I'm not talking fast paced life or death situation. Maybe a scenario where the BG is trapped in a blind ally, and the LEOs are behind cover, etc... Can the LEOs say "Hey sir, if you want to live you know what to do" or something similar?

Extreme example, and bad practice, but legally, is a "drop it" type verbal command required?

EOD3
09-27-2010, 15:50
When an LEO shows up at a scene with lights and sirens, in a shinny police car, and dressed in full uniform, and observe a person with a gun in their hand, does the LEO have a legal obligation to shout "drop it" or something similar? I'm not talking fast paced life or death situation. Maybe a scenario where the BG is trapped in a blind ally, and the LEOs are behind cover, etc... Can the LEOs say "Hey sir, if you want to live you know what to do" or something similar?

Extreme example, and bad practice, but legally, is a "drop it" type verbal command required?

Halt or I'll shoot again? :faint:

IMHO: An officer MUST understand the situation to take prudent actions. Sometimes the situation does not allow much/any time for study.

Patchman
09-27-2010, 17:07
IMHO: An officer MUST understand the situation to take prudent actions. Sometimes the situation does not allow much/any time for study.

Exactly. For example, at the LV Costco, the responding cops were on a MWAG run and was informed that the gunman was possibly Special Forces (still active SF?). They show up, sees a young, physically fit man (yep, could still be active SF guy) with gun. Man faces them. Man pulls gun. Man takes shooting position with gun in hand... Woooo, enough understanding! Time to take prudent action.

as a poster noted, it was over in 3 seconds.

CAcop
09-27-2010, 18:00
A witness says there was no time between "drop it" command and shooting. If true, does the talk about drugs make a difference?
http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/25180860/detail.html

Of course the witness is a lawyer so it can not be trusted.

I am willing to bet that the officer who yelled drop it was the last person to fire.

That officer was probably willing to give the guy one last try to not be shot. The other officers were done asking "pretty please with sugar on top." There is no need to say drop it. Deadly force can be met with deadly force at any time. A more perfect use to "drop it" is in a situation with someone with a blunt object or edged weapon and the suspect is far enough away they are not an immediate threat to life or safety. Now if the dude starts running at a fast pace there is no need to say "stop."

Short version: the courts are okay under certain circumstances with the officer not giving a verbal warning, the unholstered firearm is enough and multilingual.

Kahr_Glockman
09-27-2010, 18:21
I am willing to bet that the officer who yelled drop it was the last person to fire.

That officer was probably willing to give the guy one last try to not be shot. The other officers were done asking "pretty please with sugar on top." There is no need to say drop it. Deadly force can be met with deadly force at any time. A more perfect use to "drop it" is in a situation with someone with a blunt object or edged weapon and the suspect is far enough away they are not an immediate threat to life or safety. Now if the dude starts running at a fast pace there is no need to say "stop."

Short version: the courts are okay under certain circumstances with the officer not giving a verbal warning, the unholstered firearm is enough and multilingual.

:agree::goodpost:

Patchman
09-27-2010, 18:51
I am willing to bet that the officer who yelled drop it was the last person to fire.


I absolutely agree. That's why I always arranged with my partner that I talk, you shoot. Or visa-versa. Excessive talking will get you killed.

SheepleNoMore
09-27-2010, 19:58
Yup, the commands came in quick succession. When told to get down, a person shouldn't run his mouth and/or reach for a gun. Reaching for a gun immediately after being told to get down will result in the "drop it" command and any move of the hand toward the officer with gun in hand is going to get you shot. It makes much more sense to me. What the officer is really saying when they say "drop it" is get your hand off the weapon. The desired result is your hand releases the weapon where ever it is. Half in the holster, in the holster, or falling to the ground. I don't know of another short command that would be better in an excited situation. Should have never touched the weapon in the first place.

Kadetklapp
09-27-2010, 20:07
So where are we on this now? I can't get the news' website to load properly. Is the inquest over and it's in the hands of the GJ?

jpa
09-27-2010, 22:28
I can shoot my bullet down your barrel and take your gun out of battery...

I train to graze the safety on a 1911 just enough to put the gun on safe. That's the best way to counter a lethal encounter IMHO :tongueout:

The-Fly
09-27-2010, 23:13
As a non LE ccw'er, I think this was a good shoot based on best possible information. Every account about this reports the suspect was acting like a flake, and made the situation a lot worse.

Mayhem like Me
09-28-2010, 07:05
I train to graze the safety on a 1911 just enough to put the gun on safe. That's the best way to counter a lethal encounter IMHO :tongueout:

You'd have to blow my thumb off YOU FAIL you JBT!!!!!!

Mayhem like Me
09-28-2010, 07:07
As a non LE ccw'er, I think this was a good shoot based on best possible information. Every account about this reports the suspect was acting like a flake, and made the situation a lot worse.

How dare you come on this board and use critical thinking skills and common sense.

Please start jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions based on the facts that all cops cover for each other...



Opps I'm sorry this isn't the GNG thread

The-Fly
09-28-2010, 13:57
How dare you come on this board and use critical thinking skills and common sense.

Please start jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions based on the facts that all cops cover for each other...



Opps I'm sorry this isn't the GNG thread


I know, I'm just horrible :supergrin:

Seriously though, its not that hard. When cop points gun at you, 2 choices...

A: Place hands on top of head, and don't make any fast movements.

B: Do anything else, eat hot lead.

Dinky
09-28-2010, 13:58
How dare you come on this board and use critical thinking skills and common sense.

Please start jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions based on the facts that all cops cover for each other...



Opps I'm sorry this isn't the GNG thread



:laughabove:

dmacker
09-28-2010, 14:58
Other two officers who did the shooting testified today.
Both were excellent witnesses.
One said he fired one round at Scott's center of mass when he saw Scott point the gun at his partner Officer Mosier. Scott began to fall so he stopped shooting.
The other officer said he fired three times at Scott's center of mass from the rear as Scott drew and pointed gun at Mosier.
Neither officer saw Scott exit store until Mosier ordered Scott to get down.
Both officers then saw Scott draw gun and point it at Mosier.
All three officers seemed surprised that Scott had left the store.
They expected to make entry to confront him.
They said that once he was out of the store his actions dictated theirs.
No way this was other than a justified shoot.
All the bad things that happened were as a result of things Scott did.
Drugs may well have caused his inability to perceive the danger that was happening around him.
There has been a lot of discussion about the carry condition of Scott's Kimber.
He had a round in the chamber with the hammer down.
That's the way I carry a 1911 type firearm.
I can thumb the hammer back while drawing and loose virtually no time in getting off a round.
I just feel more comfortable than cocked and locked and having to drop the safety.
I know this is very much a personal preference.
I also believe that the type of holster Scott used could well have come out with the firearm while it was being drawn.
That has been a problem with clip type holsters for many years.
Manufacturers have redesigned the clip to lock it on the belt and it still comes off.

TBO
09-28-2010, 14:58
SOOOO many posts when this broke about Scott being a "Squared away West Point Military Grad, with a CCW".

dmacker
09-28-2010, 15:03
SOOOO many posts when this broke about Scott being a "Squared away West Point Military Grad, with a CCW".

And the cop hatters and family and friends are still sowing that seed on the live broadcast blog on Las Vegas 8.

Patchman
09-28-2010, 15:26
I also believe that the type of holster Scott used could well have come out with the firearm while it was being drawn.
That has been a problem with clip type holsters for many years.
Manufacturers have redesigned the clip to lock it on the belt and it still comes off.

Many, many years ago I got rid of the spring clips. Belt loops only.

Straight Pipe
09-28-2010, 21:10
So this is the spin now?

Edited to say I Just read the second link. I still believe this is the primary cause of this incident:

Combat zone training for police = very unfortunate overreaction. As opposed to (in your view) a fortunate under-reaction where the cop goes home in a body bag?

What a disappointing mess.

The only dissapointing mess is that tools like you don't have clue# 1 what is involved in police work.

AZLawDawg
09-28-2010, 22:11
SOOOO many posts when this broke about Scott being a "Squared away West Point Military Grad, with a CCW".

awfully silent now.

Kadetklapp
09-29-2010, 06:43
WTF is wrong with these people-
Maggie McLetchie, an attorney for the ACLU of Nevada, said the verdict was expected, but the process was flawed.

“We’re not surprised with this verdict because no matter what the evidence is, no matter what the case is, officer-involved shootings are almost always found to be justified,” she said.

Of course Erik "The Walking Pharmacy" Scott's daddy is all up in arms since the PD was cleared. It must be a conspiracy. Surely your drug-riddled moron of a son didn't make a bone-headed move that resulted in copious amounts of lead being injected into his body at high-velocities. I know! Let's dig him up and perform another autopsy on his nasty corpse, because that always proves the conspiracy theorists right!
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/28/jury-shooting-justified/

FiremanMike
09-29-2010, 08:01
Kadet your quote made me chuckle.. The fact is, the vast majority of officer involved shootings ARE justified, but a fantastic job the ACLU did on spinning that fact to sound malicious.

People want to believe that everything is a conspiracy, probably in part due to the popularity of movies and tv shows that perpetuate this idea, and probably also in part due to them being bored in their own lives.

People want to soap box and say "oh my gosh the cops are evil, this could happen to ANYONE!". Well, I suppose it could. This could happen to ANYONE who gets jacked up on drugs, knowingly carries a firearm, causes a disturbance of any sort, and then doesn't feel like they have to obey the nice police man who is just there to sort out the problem. If you fall in to that category, then yes it could happen to you.

merlynusn
09-29-2010, 08:02
Glad to hear they were found to be justified.

Also, isn't a Coroner's Inquest similar to a grand jury where only the prosecution presents evidence?

And I'm sorry, but if you really thought you had some good witnesses, you'd have them testify at the inquest instead of waiting for the civil lawsuit.

dmacker
09-29-2010, 08:41
"Up to this point, the focus of the coroner’s inquest has been on Metro, Bill Scott said.

“Metro pulled the trigger,” Scott said. “But Costco was the primary guilty party. Costco killed Erik.”"

This is so very typical.
It obviously couldn't have been my drugged up belligerent felonious son who was at fault.
He was a third grade honor student, a graduate of the military academy and a pillar of the community.

His two ex-wives who charges him with domestic violence an threatening to kill them
were just over reacting.
His inability to keep a job was not of his doing but the bad economy and Bush's fault.

And by the way his claim to have been a Green Beret doing all kinds of "black ops"
was just so he could get laid.

Why must someone else always be at fault when we suffer the consequences of our acts. Will we ever be able to say it was my fault. I screwed up.

It had to be the fault of someone else and we want our money.

Fact is Eric Scott killed himself.

End of story.

ray9898
09-29-2010, 08:59
Maggie McLetchie, an attorney for the ACLU of Nevada, said the verdict was expected, but the process was flawed.

“We’re not surprised with this verdict because no matter what the evidence is, no matter what the case is, officer-involved shootings are almost always found to be justified,” she said.


Laughable.

Mayhem like Me
09-29-2010, 08:59
Long story made short , I was personally involved in one of these having to pull the trigger on a EDP that was long protected by his family, when he threatened his family with the guns "he did not have access to" and shot at the entry team with a shotgun his troubled life was eneded.

For my part a 22 month odessy involving a grand jury and subsequent lawsuit which we won, and when my attorney presented a intent to sue letter on the parents after their failed civil suit they filed bankruptcy and moved..

They lost the enabler lottery due to my agency having the balls to not offer squat to make it go away..kudos if more agencies did this these things would dry up because attorneys only get the big payout for a win, and the prep for these trials costs alot in time and money.

AngryBassets
09-30-2010, 15:32
For my part a 22 month odessy involving a grand jury and subsequent lawsuit which we won, and when my attorney presented a intent to sue letter on the parents after their failed civil suit they filed bankruptcy and moved..

Typical. And I suspect as much as this idiot's father has shot his mouth off, he'll find himself getting sued, too, if karma comes 'round.

They lost the enabler lottery due to my agency having the balls to not offer squat to make it go away..kudos if more agencies did this these things would dry up because attorneys only get the big payout for a win, and the prep for these trials costs alot in time and money.

I couldn't agree more. :patriot:

steveksux
09-30-2010, 15:42
“We’re not surprised with this verdict because no matter what the evidence is, no matter what the case is, officer-involved shootings are almost always found to be justified,” she said

Funny how that works, when you extensively train carefully screened people on when its justified to use deadly force, they tend to use deadly force only when justified. That's just SO counterintuitive...

Who could have possibly guessed at THAT correlation! :dunno: Probably just some sort of coincidence, a statistical quirk. Or MAYBE, its a conspiracy! Must be, its so counterintuitive.

Randy

Morris
09-30-2010, 16:10
Funny thing about counter suits - they work. It did for me, or at least the threat of a few occasions.

And yes, our city's insurance company has finally decided not to be an ATM. Took them 20 years to learn.

dano1427
09-30-2010, 16:19
Funny thing about counter suits - they work. It did for me, or at least the threat of a few occasions.

And yes, our city's insurance company has finally decided not to be an ATM. Took them 20 years to learn.

And I bet your city's civil claims and lawsuits have dropped accordingly. Maybe it was your city in Washington State, but I read a very interesting article about that; in which the city started to fight the civil litigation and even counter-sue, irregardless if the initial payouts were more than the settlement amount. Eventually, the civil lawsuits started to stop, thus the city was saving money in the long run.

Patchman
09-30-2010, 19:16
And I bet your city's civil claims and lawsuits have dropped accordingly. Maybe it was your city in Washington State, but I read a very interesting article about that; in which the city started to fight the civil litigation and even counter-sue, irregardless if the initial payouts were more than the settlement amount. Eventually, the civil lawsuits started to stop, thus the city was saving money in the long run.

Let's hope this trend catches on fire and spreads. I've also always believed police unions/associations should encourage and assist their member officers to sue, where possible. For example, an LEO on routine patrol driving around getting T-boned. A civilian in the same situation definitely has a cause of action. Or a cop forced to shoot a BG. LEO should sue for emotional distress, spouse sues for loss of consortium, etc... (heck, they can make up for it after check clears). :supergrin:

EOD3
09-30-2010, 20:56
Well guys, at the risk of being vilified by the masses, I think there are a BOAT LOAD of unasked questions and about twice as many unanswered. Obviously, looking for facts in a “news” story is like looking for your shadow with a Sure-Fire but, there are just too many conflicting statements and inconsistencies that go unexplained.
One officer says he heard “hands, let me see your hands” someone else says he heard “drop it”, someone else hears “get on the ground”. Who gave which order(s) and when? Don’t know because it wasn’t established during the inquest. Clearly, he didn’t have a gun in his hand when he came out the door with the other shoppers so what “imminent threat” were they responding to?
As for the insinuation that he was some kind of whacked-out doper, give me a break. Many people, officers included, have taken prescription pain killers. I know I have, on duty and off.
I don’t know what the heck Det. Jensen is talking about. Maybe things are just strange in LV but in the rest of NV, having the “wrong gun” is a $25 fine, not a felony.

Does anyone know if the holster was a snap-down or an open top?

It’s certainly possible things went down exactly as the officers said but the inquest didn’t do them any favors. I’m about as “pro cop” as you can get so you can imagine how the “evil po-po” crowd will spin it.

Patchman
10-01-2010, 03:57
Well guys, at the risk of being vilified by the masses, I think there are a BOAT LOAD of unasked questions and about twice as many unanswered. Obviously, looking for facts in a “news” story is like looking for your shadow with a Sure-Fire but, there are just too many conflicting statements and inconsistencies that go unexplained.
One officer says he heard “hands, let me see your hands” someone else says he heard “drop it”, someone else hears “get on the ground”. Who gave which order(s) and when? Don’t know because it wasn’t established during the inquest. Clearly, he didn’t have a gun in his hand when he came out the door with the other shoppers so what “imminent threat” were they responding to?
As for the insinuation that he was some kind of whacked-out doper, give me a break. Many people, officers included, have taken prescription pain killers. I know I have, on duty and off.
I don’t know what the heck Det. Jensen is talking about. Maybe things are just strange in LV but in the rest of NV, having the “wrong gun” is a $25 fine, not a felony.

Does anyone know if the holster was a snap-down or an open top?

It’s certainly possible things went down exactly as the officers said but the inquest didn’t do them any favors. I’m about as “pro cop” as you can get so you can imagine how the “evil po-po” crowd will spin it.

According to another poster, a snap down holster.

The inquest didn't do the LEOs any favors. Word on the street is the inquest system is generally anti LE.

Good point about how the "evil po-po" crowd will spin this. Hey, good watchin' out. Meanwhile, LV Metro is doing just fine. :angry fire:

Kadetklapp
10-01-2010, 06:44
Counter-suing is a wonderful invention that I think is under-utilized.

In fact, I've never heard about it in these parts involving LE. When I was applying around at different agencies after college, each application wanted to know if I had any pending civil litigation as either the petitioner or respondent. Supposedly, if you had sued someone, it was a major black mark on you as an applicant as the PD doesn't want to hire "sue happy" people.

EOD3
10-01-2010, 16:12
According to another poster, a snap down holster.

The inquest didn't do the LEOs any favors. Word on the street is the inquest system is generally anti LE.

I should have used a smiley or two for emphasis...

I don't know anyone that thinks the armchair quarterbacks are their friends.

What I meant was that even though the inquest "cleared" the officers, they left out a truck-load of pertinent evidence that gives the "land-sharks" easy avenues of attack. I would have preferred to see the inquest ask and answer a number of glossed over questions.

Patchman
10-01-2010, 17:17
I don't know anyone that thinks the armchair quarterbacks are their friends.

Ain't that the truth, brother, ain't that the truth. But the reality is, when it comes to police work, everybody DOES know more about police work than the police.



What I meant was that even though the inquest "cleared" the officers, they left out a truck-load of pertinent evidence that gives the "land-sharks" easy avenues of attack. I would have preferred to see the inquest ask and answer a number of glossed over questions.

Yes, the LEOs were cleared in law, but their reputations, and their department's, are still under attack. I've always said, dig, dig, dig until there is no question left in anyone's mind about anything. I know one of the issues was his prescription drug use, for which he was vilified. Many supporters say even that much ("fatal dose") narcotics in the system may not have affect his behavior, reaction, etc... But the inquest failed to address whether blood samples were taken postmortum and tested for illegal drugs. Why? Because many sheeples around the country will think (I know my 74 y.o. mother does) that anyone who abuses prescribed medication may also abuse street drugs, and maybe he did have illegal drugs in his system, which caused him to behave thusly. Eliminate that potential avenue of attack. Sloppy.

DonGlock26
10-01-2010, 17:20
Long story made short , I was personally involved in one of these having to pull the trigger on a EDP that was long protected by his family, when he threatened his family with the guns "he did not have access to" and shot at the entry team with a shotgun his troubled life was eneded.

For my part a 22 month odessy involving a grand jury and subsequent lawsuit which we won, and when my attorney presented a intent to sue letter on the parents after their failed civil suit they filed bankruptcy and moved..

They lost the enabler lottery due to my agency having the balls to not offer squat to make it go away..kudos if more agencies did this these things would dry up because attorneys only get the big payout for a win, and the prep for these trials costs alot in time and money.


Well, that post made my day. :beer:

DonGlock26
10-01-2010, 17:21
SOOOO many posts when this broke about Scott being a "Squared away West Point Military Grad, with a CCW".

Gone with the wind......

CAcop
10-01-2010, 17:43
Counter-suing is a wonderful invention that I think is under-utilized.

In fact, I've never heard about it in these parts involving LE. When I was applying around at different agencies after college, each application wanted to know if I had any pending civil litigation as either the petitioner or respondent. Supposedly, if you had sued someone, it was a major black mark on you as an applicant as the PD doesn't want to hire "sue happy" people.

Not a big deal if it is stuff that is meaningful. Say a work comp injury where the city is denying anything happened even though you have witnesses, etc. Or if you get sued in fed court for civil rights violations and you countersue because you were hurt and the plaintiff drops you from their lawsuit effectively ending their case. Or you live next door to a party house and you sue the landlord for damages along with the rest of your neighbors.

Now if you are suing your neighbor because he uses his hot tub at night and it bothers you.....don't expect a call back.

Patchman
10-01-2010, 20:26
Supposedly... it was a major black mark on you as an applicant as the PD doesn't want to hire "sue happy" people.

Absolutely LE should not have a reputation of "sue happy" people. Really looks tacky. But on the other hand, LEO should not be denied the full range of legal recourses available to them. In fact, LEOs already have less rights to sue than other professions. Why? Because a valid cause of action arises only when the injury/incident was caused by unreasonable or irresponsible human acts (or whatever the legal standards are). But by definition, LE work involves a lot of violence/dangers/risks of injury that are inherent to the profession. So you probably can't sue the BG if you're injured in a fight with him/her, or after having to shoot a BG. But if you're on a doughnut & coffee run for the Captain, and a car blows the red light and T-bones you, you have a right to sue, just as if you were a soccer dad/mom on a coffee run.

Patchman
10-01-2010, 20:32
An interesting standard would be an LEO suing for defamation of character via slander and/or libel. How thick skinned would courts hold LEO to have?

Morris
10-01-2010, 21:54
Well, I'll give you my last case. I investigate a violation of an order. Verify that a good violation occurs, interview the suspect by telephone (never met him), obtain what I need and charge him through the prosecutors office. He gets charged, comes in, found guilty. I was never subpoenaed. Yet myself and my department spent nearly a year with this goofball suing us. My case wound up all the way to a three judge panel at the 9th before it gets dismissed, again. He's doing everything pro se. Mind you, I still have never met the man, don't know what he looks like even today.

I finally had enough and laid out the notification for malicious harassment, due to the multitude of subpoenas, costs to the city and whatnot. Suddenly, everything goes away and he disappears. As nutty as he appeared to be, I am certain if it wasn't for me just preparing to counter sue him, it would have continued up until he completely exhausted his avenues and cost us even more time and money.

CAcop
10-02-2010, 08:57
An interesting standard would be an LEO suing for defamation of character via slander and/or libel. How thick skinned would courts hold LEO to have?

If someone was saying we were liars I think we would have a great case especially if we could prove we were telling the truth since our reputations of truthfulness are the foundations for our careers.

Patchman
10-02-2010, 12:42
A LEO shoots someone and the community ilifies him/her as a killer, etc... Goes to Grand Jury and no true bill, or criminal trial and jury finds LEO not guilty. The LEO's reputation has been sullied and defamed. IIRC, the standards for defamation for a private individual is lower than for, say, a public person, such as a movie star. I don't know where LEOs would fall. This would definitely open up a whole new area of practice.

EOD3
10-02-2010, 13:44
A LEO shoots someone and the community ilifies him/her as a killer, etc... Goes to Grand Jury and no true bill, or criminal trial and jury finds LEO not guilty. The LEO's reputation has been sullied and defamed. IIRC, the standards for defamation for a private individual is lower than for, say, a public person, such as a movie star. I don't know where LEOs would fall. This would definitely open up a whole new area of practice.

They'd probably hold that officers intentionally put themselves in adversarial/confrontational situations and that little Johnny Scumbag has a 1st amendment right to lie like a snake.

PS: Don't forget that a LOT of people are patting you on the back and bytching about poor marksmanship on a "flesh wound". :cool:

Patchman
10-02-2010, 18:08
They'd probably hold that officers intentionally put themselves in adversarial/confrontational situations and that little Johnny Scumbag has a 1st amendment right to lie like a snake.

PS: Don't forget that a LOT of people are patting you on the back and bytching about poor marksmanship on a "flesh wound". :cool:

Hey EOD3, stop PMing me. You love cops, say so. You hate cops, say so. You better than cops, say so. You smarter than cops, say so. Nothing personal. Plenty like you out there. You not the first, you not the last.

Kadetklapp
10-02-2010, 22:38
Hey EOD3, stop PMing me. You love cops, say so. You hate cops, say so. You better than cops, say so. You smarter than cops, say so. Nothing personal. Plenty like you out there. You not the first, you not the last.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:-x5w1MZY9HG44M:http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/orly-owl.jpg

EOD3
10-03-2010, 15:47
Hey EOD3, stop PMing me. You love cops, say so. You hate cops, say so. You better than cops, say so. You smarter than cops, say so. Nothing personal. Plenty like you out there. You not the first, you not the last.

My apologies Putzman, I should have realized your screen name indicated you are the king turd at a tire shop, not an officer. I PM one time with a simple question... Hi Patchman, by the sound of your posts, it looks like you may know the officers involved? ... and you respond, here in the thread, with your obvious eloquence.

I may be a "has been" from the 70's but you sir, if not a "never was", certainly qualify as a "should NEVER have been". You're a perfect example of why so many citizens thing cops are all power-hungry dirt-bags with a gun and a badge.

I bet you're just a bright shiny example of professionalism. :wavey:

Patchman
10-05-2010, 05:11
My apologies Putzman, I should have realized your screen name indicated you are the king turd at a tire shop, not an officer. I PM one time with a simple question... ... and you respond, here in the thread, with your obvious eloquence.

I may be a "has been" from the 70's but you sir, if not a "never was", certainly qualify as a "should NEVER have been". You're a perfect example of why so many citizens thing cops are all power-hungry dirt-bags with a gun and a badge.

I bet you're just a bright shiny example of professionalism. :wavey:

Well, OOD3, what brought on this anger? All I asked was one simple thing. Guess I'm not getting a Christmas card from you this year. :whistling: But no, not a tire store. A pizzeria. Or in the street vernacular, a pizza shop.

"You love cops, say so. You hate cops, say so. You better than cops, say so. You smarter than cops, say so. Nothing personal. Plenty like you out there. You not the first, you not the last." No need to post secret answers or questions via PMs. Public forum, public answers.

Sorry if your feelings were so easily bruised. Putzman out. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

EOD3
10-05-2010, 16:56
Well, OOD3, what brought on this anger? All I asked was one simple thing.

Maybe, when you finish the “steps” your cognitive faculties will come back and you can move back up to adolescent quality communication skills.

Guess I'm not getting a Christmas card from you this year.

No, I think not. Maybe a lump of coal, or something else so you don’t have to “burgle” them.

But no, not a tire store. A pizzeria. Or in the street vernacular, a pizza shop.

OHHHH, that explains the “scuttlebutt” that you’re into the sauce whenever nobody is looking.

"You love cops, say so.

Not really. I tend to consider most of them friends.

You hate cops, say so.

Not really. I get a little angry when one of the “ruling class” losers does something idiotic or criminal and then hides behind better men that are unwilling to speak up and risk being the department “rat”.

You better than cops, say so.

Some of them (obviously)

You smarter than cops, say so.

See above…

Nothing personal. Plenty like you out there.

You’re right, and most of the officers I know are damn glad we are.

No need to post secret answers or questions via PMs. Public forum, public answers.

O-VERY-WELL I thought I was talking to an adult that might be able to pass-on a “stay strong” to the guys involved because a genuine POOP STORM is about to land on their heads. Mosher (?) needs as many friends as he can get because he’s going to be lucky if he doesn’t end up doing time for voluntary manslaughter.

There you go, public forum, public answers… Happy now?

Sorry if your feelings were so easily bruised. Putzman out. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Only a complete tool or a drunk would expect any other response. Yes Putzman, you are certainly OUT. :tequila:

Patchman
10-05-2010, 17:10
Maybe, when you finish the “steps” your cognitive faculties will come back and you can move back up to adolescent quality communication skills.



No, I think not. Maybe a lump of coal, or something else so you don’t have to “burgle” them.



OHHHH, that explains the “scuttlebutt” that you’re into the sauce whenever nobody is looking.



Not really. I tend to consider most of them friends.



Not really. I get a little angry when one of the “ruling class” losers does something idiotic or criminal and then hides behind better men that are unwilling to speak up and risk being the department “rat”.



Some of them (obviously)



See above…



You’re right, and most of the officers I know are damn glad we are.



O-VERY-WELL I thought I was talking to an adult that might be able to pass-on a “stay strong” to the guys involved because a genuine POOP STORM is about to land on their heads. Mosher (?) needs as many friends as he can get because he’s going to be lucky if he doesn’t end up doing time for voluntary manslaughter.

There you go, public forum, public answers… Happy now?



Only a complete tool or a drunk would expect any other response. Yes Putzman, you are certainly OUT. :tequila:

OOD3, your misplaced hate of LE is apparent. And pathetic. And sad. I'm so sorry your hate is so strong but you did forget to accuse me of being a abuser of prescription narcotic Rx too. Maybe you're personally addicted so... anyway, bottoms up.

Putzman out. Again. :supergrin:

Patchman
10-05-2010, 17:40
I should have used a smiley or two for emphasis...


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

EOD3
10-06-2010, 11:18
Putzman: Don't confuse my disdain for you and your obvious arrogance as a condemnation of professional Law Enforcement Officers everywhere. As I said, I consider most of them friends.

Don't forget, you instigated this "dust-up" with your childish "I'm officer super-cool" post.

O-BY-THE-WAY: I didn't accuse you of anything, I insinuated, just like you did.

Kadetklapp
10-06-2010, 11:28
I'm really confused...

Detectorist
10-06-2010, 11:31
Well, OOD3, what brought on this anger? All I asked was one simple thing. Guess I'm not getting a Christmas card from you this year. :whistling: But no, not a tire store. A pizzeria. Or in the street vernacular, a pizza shop.

"You love cops, say so. You hate cops, say so. You better than cops, say so. You smarter than cops, say so. Nothing personal. Plenty like you out there. You not the first, you not the last." No need to post secret answers or questions via PMs. Public forum, public answers.

Sorry if your feelings were so easily bruised. Putzman out. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

You do know that pizza is one of the three food groups. Pizza, Ice cream, Beer. all essential nutrients. lol

Patchman
10-06-2010, 11:39
Putzman: Don't confuse my disdain for you and your obvious arrogance as a condemnation of professional Law Enforcement Officers everywhere. As I said, I consider most of them friends.

Don't forget, you instigated this "dust-up" with your childish "I'm officer super-cool" post.

O-BY-THE-WAY: I didn't accuse you of anything, I insinuated, just like you did.

OOD3. I'm familiar with people like you. This is as close to a "sorry" as you're capable of. Out of graciousness I accept.

Did I ever say to you I was LEO? Your hate for LEOs blurred your vision, didn't it? At least you cleared up that point.

Most cop haters always have that "some of my best friends are cops" line. Or the "I love cops because my daddy was a cop and I love my daddy" line. :rofl: So you're no different than the other bumbaclots out there.

Time to put out more pies. Oh, I am soooooo elbow deep in the "sause" right now. :supergrin:

Putzman out, again.

RussP
10-06-2010, 12:13
Guys, knock off the personal crap. You're gonna get the thread locked. :impatient:

RussP
10-06-2010, 12:20
One thing in this that gets me is the family's attorney's statement that there are facts deliberately not presented at the inquest they will use at the civil trial.

I said very early on that the posturing by the family and 'friends', the billboards, the blog, the call for 'eyewitnesses' to tell the 'truth', were all prepping for the civil proceedings.

Going to be interesting to see how they will justify suppressing all evidence and testimony about Scott's addiction and abusive behavior.

Patchman
10-06-2010, 12:49
One thing in this that gets me is the family's attorney's statement that there are facts deliberately not presented at the inquest they will use at the civil trial.

I said very early on that the posturing by the family and 'friends', the billboards, the blog, the call for 'eyewitnesses' to tell the 'truth', were all prepping for the civil proceedings.

Going to be interesting to see how they will justify suppressing all evidence and testimony about Scott's addiction and abusive behavior.

From day 1, the family attorney is the son of LV serving Mayor. As LV is a gambling city, this one fact already makes the family's odds well stacked in their favor.

I was surprised the inquest was free of politics to the extent it was.

Patchman
10-06-2010, 12:54
One thing in this that gets me is the family's attorney's statement that there are facts deliberately not presented at the inquest they will use at the civil trial.

You'd wonder why they intentionally surpress information from the inquest if they were after "the truth." :dunno:

Dragoon44
10-06-2010, 13:24
Guys, knock off the personal crap. You're gonna get the thread locked. :impatient:

You need to press Eric for a Vs. forum where two members can duke it out.

:rofl::rofl:

Patchman
10-06-2010, 13:34
You need to press Eric for a Vs. forum where two members can duke it out.

:rofl::rofl:

Or use it as a GT fund raiser, like a Police vs. FF boxing night.

RussP
10-06-2010, 16:54
You'd wonder why they intentionally surpress information from the inquest if they were after "the truth." :dunno:Expecting the the inquest results they received, they decided to save the big dose of their version of the truth for the civil lawsuit.

:cool:

RussP
10-06-2010, 17:00
You need to press Eric for a Vs. forum where two members can duke it out.

:rofl::rofl:

Or use it as a GT fund raiser, like a Police vs. FF boxing night.Hmmmmm...

steveksux
10-06-2010, 17:17
Expecting the the inquest results they received, they decided to save the big dose of their version of the truth for the civil lawsuit.

:cool:You can't get a payday from the inquest. Save your big guns for the civil trial. In their search for the "truth"... that's one truth they'd rather not admit to.

Besides, losing the inquest sets up their "its a conspiracy" and "they were denied justice" plea for sympathy. Makes a great narrative to tug the jury heartstrings. He was turning his life around, he loved to sing and dance....

Randy

RussP
10-06-2010, 17:54
You can't get a payday from the inquest. Save your big guns for the civil trial. In their search for the "truth"... that's one truth they'd rather not admit to.

Besides, losing the inquest sets up their "its a conspiracy" and "they were denied justice" plea for sympathy. Makes a great narrative to tug the jury heartstrings. He was turning his life around, he loved to sing and dance....

RandyExactly...

EOD3
10-06-2010, 18:30
Putzman: Don't confuse my disdain for you and your obvious arrogance as a condemnation of professional Law Enforcement Officers everywhere. As I said, I consider most of them friends.

Putz, if you can find an apology of any kind in that text, you're the reincarnation of Dick Tracey. You can be pretty sure if you ever hear "sorry" from me it will be followed by one or more verbs and a pejorative or two.

I really don't care if you want to play "make believe" one way or another. My opinion of your behavior is not significantly affected by your occupation.

I believe I've had enough psycho-babble from the "mall-ninja" section.

Patchman
10-06-2010, 18:52
Originally Posted by Dragoon44
You need to press Eric for a Vs. forum where two members can duke it out.



Originally Posted by Patchman
Or use it as a GT fund raiser, like a Police vs. FF boxing night.

Hmmmmm...



Russ, to save money, we can all crash at your place. :)

Patchman
10-07-2010, 03:46
Speaking of the civil trial, I'm trying to figure out who would be sued. Those with deep pockets, naturally, so that would include Sin City, LVPD, all the LEOs who responded, Costco, and the manager and security staff who called 9-1-1. That's the easy list.

I'm also betting that the dark horse candidates will include the MDs who treated him, and who provided him with the narcotics prescriptions.

steveksux
10-07-2010, 06:26
Speaking of the civil trial, I'm trying to figure out who would be sued. Those with deep pockets, naturally, so that would include Sin City, LVPD, all the LEOs who responded, Costco, and the manager and security staff who called 9-1-1. That's the easy list.

I'm also betting that the dark horse candidates will include the MDs who treated him, and who provided him with the narcotics prescriptions.
You always want to cast as wide a net as possible in your "search for the truth"... Leave no stone unturned, you never know which one will bleed when you squeeze it...

Randy

merlynusn
10-07-2010, 07:25
I think they said they were going after Costco because "their actions caused his death."

Mayhem like Me
10-07-2010, 07:29
I think they said they were going after Costco because "their actions caused his death."

Make no Mistake about this . HIS ACTIONS AND THE INACTION OF HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS CAUSED THE CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT LED TO HIS DEATH..

I hope the family does sue and goes bankrupt after a jurty trial that will tell all the enablers of the world that they are responsible for themselves and their loved ones.

Jester249
10-07-2010, 08:50
Make no Mistake about this . HIS ACTIONS AND THE INACTION OF HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS CAUSED THE CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT LED TO HIS DEATH..

I hope the family does sue and goes bankrupt after a jurty trial that will tell all the enablers of the world that they are responsible for themselves and their loved ones.

Not that this is a big surprise coming from you, but WELL SAID!!!:agree::cheers::cheers:

TBO
01-31-2011, 17:20
Costco dropped from shooting lawsuit

http://www.lvrj.com/news/costco-dropped-from-shooting-lawsuit-113290294.html?ref=294
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article says that Erik Scott's family had dropped Costco as a defendant in their lawsuit.

Costco's loss prevention super has also been dropped as a defendant.


TBO

PuroMexicano
01-31-2011, 18:31
stupid move in the first place

CAcop
01-31-2011, 19:59
I have to laugh because all of the GTers who said Costco was in deep trouble.

Seems like they dropped Costco so that only leaves LVMPD to try to get to settle otherwise the attorney gets squat. It would almost be worth it for LV to take it to trial and win.

Dragoon44
01-31-2011, 22:40
I have to laugh because all of the GTers who said Costco was in deep trouble.

THey always play the same song, their latest "hero" is gonna own __________ (fill in the blank.)

And what usually happens is their hero settles out of court for chump change.

ateamer
01-31-2011, 23:36
It would almost be worth it for LV to take it to trial and win.
Absolutely. Spend more money to fight it and win, but do that with every BS lawsuit and it will save a tremendous amount in the long run. And then go after the plaintiffs for cost recovery. Publicize it and make it known that anyone who sues the PD is not going up against a quitter, and if they lose, they will be paying a pretty penny.

EOD3
02-04-2011, 19:10
At the risk of causing one of the little girls to hyperventilate, has the "real" sequence of events been nailed down on this? When this first blew-up, there were some things that seemed odd to me. If anyone has a link to the final finding, I'd appreciate it.

Patchman
02-04-2011, 19:46
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

EOD3
02-05-2011, 00:17
Little point in your "passing gas" Putz, you're so deep in the "IGNORE" list you'll never see daylight again. :cow: :notlistening:

dmacker
02-05-2011, 07:20
The job of "Sheep Dog" is not for everyone and it's certainly not the best paying.
However, for those with the mindset of public service it is truly a rewarding lifestyle.

During my 32 years I always enjoyed going to work.
On the other hand, for those who are just punching a clock it can be a tedious endeavor.

Jack Nicholson said it best when he was on the stand testifying.
Referring to the relationship between the "sheep" and the "sheep dogs.

"You don't want the truth.
You can't handle the truth.
Because deep
down, in places you don't talk about at
parties, you want me on that wall. You me
need me on that wall.

We use words like honor, code,
loyalty...we use these words as the
backbone to a life spent defending
something. You use 'em as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the
inclination to explain myself to a man who
rises and sleeps under the blanket of the
very freedom I provide, then questions the
manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer
you just said thank you and went on your
way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a
weapon and stand a post. Either way, I
don't give a damn what you think you're
entitled to."

Of course then they cuffed him and dragged him off.

steveksux
02-05-2011, 07:45
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

QFT.. :rofl:

Randy

Napalm561
02-05-2011, 10:03
Absolutely. Spend more money to fight it and win, but do that with every BS lawsuit and it will save a tremendous amount in the long run. And then go after the plaintiffs for cost recovery. Publicize it and make it known that anyone who sues the PD is not going up against a quitter, and if they lose, they will be paying a pretty penny.

Counter sue for the ammo used.:rofl:

DMF
02-13-2011, 14:37
The job of "Sheep Dog" is not for everyone and it's certainly not the best paying.
However, for those with the mindset of public service it is truly a rewarding lifestyle.

During my 32 years I always enjoyed going to work.
On the other hand, for those who are just punching a clock it can be a tedious endeavor.

Jack Nicholson said it best when he was on the stand testifying.
Referring to the relationship between the "sheep" and the "sheep dogs.

"You don't want the truth.
You can't handle the truth.
Because deep
down, in places you don't talk about at
parties, you want me on that wall. You me
need me on that wall.

We use words like honor, code,
loyalty...we use these words as the
backbone to a life spent defending
something. You use 'em as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the
inclination to explain myself to a man who
rises and sleeps under the blanket of the
very freedom I provide, then questions the
manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer
you just said thank you and went on your
way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a
weapon and stand a post. Either way, I
don't give a damn what you think you're
entitled to."

Of course then they cuffed him and dragged him off.

Uh, in case you forgot the character that Nicholson played was a liar who ordered an assault that ended in murder, and then conspired to cover it all up. Not exactly the type of character I'd look to for guidance on anything.

CAcop
02-13-2011, 18:32
Uh, in case you forgot the character that Nicholson played was a liar who ordered an assault that ended in murder, and then conspired to cover it all up. Not exactly the type of character I'd look to for guidance on anything.

How about this then.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Unless of course you think TR was a ******.

Dexters
02-13-2011, 19:28
Unless of course you think TR was a ******.

Because TR ran as an independent we got Woodrow Wilson in 1912. In my opinion, the worst president. The world would have much better off without WW.

EOD3
02-15-2011, 00:27
Because TR ran as an independent we got Woodrow Wilson in 1912. In my opinion, the worst president. The world would have much better off without WW.

While TR was a great man in many ways, he was also what we would nowadays call a "progressive". He pulled some VERY unconstitutional rabbits out of his hat. At least he wasn't as much of a DISASTER as good old honest Abe....

Let the soundbite war begin...

EOD3
02-15-2011, 00:35
So, I guess nobody has any information on the final findings... I guess I'll have to dig it out on my own. If anyone else is interested in facts over hysteria, shoot a PM and I'll CC any information I can find.

TBO
05-12-2011, 08:49
http://media.lvrj.com/images/5555941-1-4.jpg

Las Vegas officers honored for 'heroic' Costco shooting

http://www.lvrj.com/news/national-police-group-honors-two-officers-involved-in-erik-scott-shooting-119926284.html

Morris
05-12-2011, 10:18
Oh lord. That will send some folks on GT plumb over the falls . . .

JimBianchi
05-12-2011, 11:04
While I was one of the people condemning this shooting, I have since changed my view.

After reading every piece of information printed about this case, and following Eric's Dad's blog posts about this, I believe the COSTCO employee drastically over reacted, but the officers did not know this at the time.

Once Eric put his hand on the pistol, they had no choice but to fire.

The drugs in Eric's system contributed to his negligence and poor reasoning in a life and death confrontation.

It is very sad, but I understand.

EOD3
05-13-2011, 12:33
I have no doubt the officers felt threatened, my question is whether Mosher precipitated the threatening situation.

The statements of witnesses are all over the place with some saying Scott tried to draw his weapon, some saying he was not, and some that probably weren't even there claiming they saw Blue-Birds flying out his butt.

This is a quote (presumably by Mosher) from the 911 call: “Put your hands where I can see them now. Drop it! Get on the ground!"

None of the witnesses said Scott was holding a weapon.

Did Mosher's command to "drop it" cause Scott to remove his weapon, in it's holster, which led Mosher to fire? The aftermath statements are clear, the weapon was on the ground, still in it's holster.

Were Mosher's actions (shoot) justified, probably. Did he contribute to the incident, looks that way to me.

Mayhem like Me
05-13-2011, 12:43
I have no doubt the officers felt threatened, my question is whether Mosher precipitated the threatening situation.

The statements of witnesses are all over the place with some saying Scott tried to draw his weapon, some saying he was not, and some that probably weren't even there claiming they saw Blue-Birds flying out his butt.

This is a quote (presumably by Mosher) from the 911 call: “Put your hands where I can see them now. Drop it! Get on the ground!"

None of the witnesses said Scott was holding a weapon.

Did Mosher's command to "drop it" cause Scott to remove his weapon, in it's holster, which led Mosher to fire? The aftermath statements are clear, the weapon was on the ground, still in it's holster.

Were Mosher's actions (shoot) justified, probably. Did he contribute to the incident, looks that way to me.


how did he contribute?

Did he get Eric Hooked on the pain pills?

Did he help Erics family enable him ?

Did he help Erics girlfiriend get the script pads so Eric could get more drugs?


Did he use Jedi like mind control over Eric forcing him to reach toward his gun?

Have you ever been forced to disarm a drug induced individual at gun point after recieving information they were armed and combative?

EOD3
05-13-2011, 12:46
how did he contribute?

Did he get Eric Hooked on the pain pills?

Did he help Erics family enable him ?

Did he help Erics girlfiriend get the script pads so Eric could get more drugs?


Did he use Jedi like mind control over Eric forcing him to reach toward his gun?

Have you ever been forced to disarm a drug induced individual at gun point after recieving information they were armed and combative?

Did you read my post or just flip-out because someone has the nerve to question the blue?

RussP
05-13-2011, 12:54
The aftermath statements are clear, the weapon was on the ground, still in it's holster.Didn't see those. How about a link to them.

Thanks

EOD3
05-13-2011, 12:56
Didn't see those. How about a link to them.

Thanks

Stand by, looking...


Patience, upgraded to FF 4, nothing works anymore...

Link

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/officer-deadly-shooting-says-man-pointed-gun-didnt/

RussP
05-13-2011, 13:10
Stand by, looking...


Patience, upgraded to FF 4, nothing works anymore...

Link

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/officer-deadly-shooting-says-man-pointed-gun-didnt/Thanks!

TBO
05-13-2011, 13:45
I have no doubt the officers felt threatened, my question is whether Mosher precipitated the threatening situation.

The statements of witnesses are all over the place with some saying Scott tried to draw his weapon, some saying he was not, and some that probably weren't even there claiming they saw Blue-Birds flying out his butt.

This is a quote (presumably by Mosher) from the 911 call: “Put your hands where I can see them now. Drop it! Get on the ground!"

None of the witnesses said Scott was holding a weapon.

Did Mosher's command to "drop it" cause Scott to remove his weapon, in it's holster, which led Mosher to fire? The aftermath statements are clear, the weapon was on the ground, still in it's holster.

Were Mosher's actions (shoot) justified, probably. Did he contribute to the incident, looks that way to me.
I don't believe Scott was standing there holding a pistol either.

Scott drew his pistol and was shot while doing so. There was no standing around for 5 minutes with it in his hand.

4949shooter
05-13-2011, 13:57
In my opinon, Scott contributed to his own demise.

Think about it...you are a cop en route to a disorderly male with gun call. This male is reported as possibly being a Green Beret. You are amped up, and reasonably so. You issue commands in an attempt to control the individual, who isn't heeding commands as you would like him to. Then there is the moment....tunnel vision or not, you want to survive the encounter.

If you are an experienced police officer, there is no doubt you have been in this type of situation before, and you know of which I speak.

The shooting by all accounts is justified. Scott put himself in a bad, bad, position. Mosher was there reacting, doing his job. It's a lousy situation all around, but is reasonable under the circumstances as these circumstances are understood.

Mayhem like Me
05-13-2011, 14:19
Did you read my post or just flip-out because someone has the nerve to question the blue?

can you answer my questions?

And they wear tan...Also that type of holster is notorious for pulling out with the gun still in it when drawn quickly FYI...

So the questions remain what experience do you bring to the table that experts somehow missed?

Mayhem like Me
05-13-2011, 14:22
Did you read my post or just flip-out because someone has the nerve to question the blue?

are my responses a flip out?
Are you just angered because someone did not like your emotional post?

EOD3
05-13-2011, 14:51
are my responses a flip out?
Are you just angered because someone did not like your emotional post?

Look, if you want to start a fight rather than discuss the situation, go to GNG and have at it. If you read my post, you know why I think Mosher contributed to the situation. You also know that I think, under the stress load, that the shoot was probably justified. I was not able to find a reference to the specific holster. One of the witnesses called it a gun rug but that sounds ridiculous.

EOD3
05-13-2011, 15:03
In my opinon, Scott contributed to his own demise.

Think about it...you are a cop en route to a disorderly male with gun call. This male is reported as possibly being a Green Beret. You are amped up, and reasonably so. You issue commands in an attempt to control the individual, who isn't heeding commands as you would like him to. Then there is the moment....tunnel vision or not, you want to survive the encounter.

If you are an experienced police officer, there is no doubt you have been in this type of situation before, and you know of which I speak.

The shooting by all accounts is justified. Scott put himself in a bad, bad, position. Mosher was there reacting, doing his job. It's a lousy situation all around, but is reasonable under the circumstances as these circumstances are understood.

No argument, Scott put himself into the situation by committing trespass. He should have left the store when he was asked. The loss-prevention flunky and/or the store manager probably blew the incident to gargantuan proportions "OMG NUT WITH A GUN". My only question about the whole mess is; was Scott trying to comply with Mosher's command when he was shot? PS: The obligatory are you or were you an officer bit wears a little thin sometimes. Compared to the majority of you I have very little time in service, a long time ago, but I've BTDT.

IndyGunFreak
05-13-2011, 15:04
I don't believe Scott was standing there holding a pistol either.

Scott drew his pistol and was shot while doing so. There was no standing around for 5 minutes with it in his hand.




This is my thinking as well... Now, why did Scott go to draw his weapon? Was he higher than a kite and he was going to shoot it out w/ the police? Was there some innocent reason that was misinterpreted by the Officers? Did he just not understand what the Officers were saying? I'd like to see some video (which apparently isn't available) of his behavior in the store also. You would think if the Police were called because he was inside, throwing merchandise, etc.. as has been reported, the police would have went inside and took pictures of this as evidence after the shooting (assuming it was not cleaned up)...

Bad situation all the way around... There's the Police's version, the Scott families version, and the Truth... I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the two.

IGF

DaBigBR
05-13-2011, 15:48
I have no doubt the officers felt threatened, my question is whether Mosher precipitated the threatening situation.

The statements of witnesses are all over the place with some saying Scott tried to draw his weapon, some saying he was not, and some that probably weren't even there claiming they saw Blue-Birds flying out his butt.

This is a quote (presumably by Mosher) from the 911 call: “Put your hands where I can see them now. Drop it! Get on the ground!"

None of the witnesses said Scott was holding a weapon.

Did Mosher's command to "drop it" cause Scott to remove his weapon, in it's holster, which led Mosher to fire? The aftermath statements are clear, the weapon was on the ground, still in it's holster.

Were Mosher's actions (shoot) justified, probably. Did he contribute to the incident, looks that way to me.

No argument, Scott put himself into the situation by committing trespass. He should have left the store when he was asked. The loss-prevention flunky and/or the store manager probably blew the incident to gargantuan proportions "OMG NUT WITH A GUN". My only question about the whole mess is; was Scott trying to comply with Mosher's command when he was shot? PS: The obligatory are you or were you an officer bit wears a little thin sometimes. Compared to the majority of you I have very little time in service, a long time ago, but I've BTDT.

The issue of conflicting commands and/or commands leading a person to take an action that results in their being shot has been discussed in the past. The most significnat incident that I recall was the shooting of an unarmed subject following a pursuit in San Bernardino, CA. I have posted a link to the FSRC article on it below:

http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2007/07/the-camera-doesnt-lie-right-wel-l-l-l-l-l-l/

It's worth reading. Remember that the officers in this case, like Deputy Webb in the San Bernardino case, had to make a split second decision. In this case (the Las Vegas one) the information available to the officers overwhelmingly indicated that there was substantial reasons for concern on their part. Not to be dramatic, but had the officers hesitated, we might have been reading about them on ODMP.

4949shooter
05-13-2011, 15:52
No argument, Scott put himself into the situation by committing trespass. He should have left the store when he was asked. The loss-prevention flunky and/or the store manager probably blew the incident to gargantuan proportions "OMG NUT WITH A GUN". My only question about the whole mess is; was Scott trying to comply with Mosher's command when he was shot? PS: The obligatory are you or were you an officer bit wears a little thin sometimes. Compared to the majority of you I have very little time in service, a long time ago, but I've BTDT.

I wasn't speaking directly to you as far the experiened police officer bit. I was speaking generally, though, the gist of my post was in response to your posts. I have been around here and have seen you post enough to realize you have some LE experience, though I don't know how much, nor does it really matter to me.

You bring up some interesting points, and some of them, in my opinion are valid. I think you and I are thinking the same thing, albeit looking at it from different angles. There is no need to be so defensive.

As far as swatbwana goes, he is a tad more open minded than you might think. Again...no need to be so much on the defense.

TBO
05-13-2011, 15:54
Does anyone here dispute that the Coroners' Inquest heard much much more information than we've read here?
Does anyone dispute that the review was thorough?

4949shooter
05-13-2011, 16:06
Does anyone here dispute that the Coroners' Inquest heard much much more information than we've read here?
Does anyone dispute that the review was thorough?


Nahh...:cool:

Mayhem like Me
05-13-2011, 16:50
Look, if you want to start a fight rather than discuss the situation, go to GNG and have at it. If you read my post, you know why I think Mosher contributed to the situation. You also know that I think, under the stress load, that the shoot was probably justified. I was not able to find a reference to the specific holster. One of the witnesses called it a gun rug but that sounds ridiculous.

I asked questions, you have already made your mind up, where others have seen that it was justifiable and found no fault with the officers, you find culpability.
Please tell me what your experience is with these situations, how many have you been in, and what in your estimation should they have done.

Your faulting of Mosher is based on what? do you know the exact order of events he was responding to when he made those commands?

Could he have said Drop it as the gun was coming out ? Please be specific.

EOD3
05-13-2011, 17:33
I asked questions, you have already made your mind up, where others have seen that it was justifiable and found no fault with the officers, you find culpability.
Please tell me what your experience is with these situations, how many have you been in, and what in your estimation should they have done.

Your faulting of Mosher is based on what? do you know the exact order of events he was responding to when he made those commands?

Could he have said Drop it as the gun was coming out ? Please be specific.

Look Sarge, I did not, nor have I ever, said that the shoot wasn't justified, PERIOD.

I AM SAYING that the lack of CLEAR, NON-CONTRADICTORY commands may have contributed to the situation. Everybody (I think) in this forum knows adrenalin and the heat of the moment combined with a perceived deadly threat can negatively effect real-time decisions (Mil-speak for pucker factor). I DO NOT think, for the tiniest fraction of a second, that Mosher fired his weapon for ANY reason other than what he has stated.

The sequence of commands was recorded by the 911 call. I hardly think "get on the ground" comes after I SEE A GUN. Getting on the ground will be promptly taken care of by the bullet holes.

Remember my remark about "getting a little thin"? If you think I'm grinding an axe, go find it for me. :popcorn:

Mayhem like Me
05-13-2011, 17:51
Look, if you want to start a fight rather than discuss the situation, go to GNG and have at it. If you read my post, you know why I think Mosher contributed to the situation. You also know that I think, under the stress load, that the shoot was probably justified. I was not able to find a reference to the specific holster. One of the witnesses called it a gun rug but that sounds ridiculous.

Well i'm glad you think the shooting was "probably justified" under "stress load'..

Do you even know or can you explain the standard that Officers force is judged by..
They had to KILL A MAN based on the event he put in motion, not them.
ANY person carrying a gun better have an action plan that involves going prone or not grabbing for your gun when challenged by the police who came to remove you for armed trespassing.

Not a Sarge either, you seem to like to be flippant and throw out judgments on these guys without going into how to do it better.

Again were you able to synch the 911 tape to some actual footage in real time so we know exactly what was said at what time in response to what actions?

Could the officers have done better. maybe but guess what only they know, and trust me they WILL think about it every day and they don't need to be reading on some cop forum about how some guy thinks they are "partially at fault" unless you have more information than we were able to gather?

EOD3
05-13-2011, 18:00
Well i'm glad you think the shooting was "probably justified" under "stress load'..

Do you even know or can you explain the standard that Officers force is judged by..
They had to KILL A MAN based on the event he put in motion, not them.
ANY person carrying a gun better have an action plan that involves going prone or not grabbing for your gun when challenged by the police who came to remove you for armed trespassing.

Not a Sarge either, you seem to like to be flippant and throw out judgments on these guys without going into how to do it better.

Again were you able to synch the 911 tape to some actual footage in real time so we know exactly what was said at what time in response to what actions?

Could the officers have done better. maybe but guess what only they know, and trust me they WILL think about it every day and they don't need to be reading on some cop forum about how some guy thinks they are "partially at fault" unless you have more information than we were able to gather?


OK, I've had enough of this. I don't know why you insist on inserting your BS into everything I say. If you can't or won't understand what I'm saying and only want to throw insults, do it with someone else. :shakehead: :stop: :notlistening:

Mayhem like Me
05-13-2011, 18:03
OK, I've had enough of this. I don't know why you insist on inserting your BS into everything I say. If you can't or won't understand what I'm saying and only want to throw insults, do it with someone else. :shakehead: :stop: :notlistening:
I was not aware that asking you to clarify your point was an insult, if you cannot articulate why he was culpable be a man and admit it.

OLY-M4gery
05-13-2011, 19:19
Did you read my post or just flip-out because someone has the nerve to question the blue?

It might be because, multiple people said he had a gun.

1 guy said he NEVER had a gun, even though the people he was with said he did have a gun.

So if anyone "flipped out" it was probably because your statement wasn't accurate.

OLY-M4gery
05-13-2011, 19:25
Look Sarge, I did not, nor have I ever, said that the shoot wasn't justified, PERIOD.

I AM SAYING that the lack of CLEAR, NON-CONTRADICTORY commands may have contributed to the situation. Everybody (I think) in this forum knows adrenalin and the heat of the moment combined with a perceived deadly threat can negatively effect real-time decisions (Mil-speak for pucker factor). I DO NOT think, for the tiniest fraction of a second, that Mosher fired his weapon for ANY reason other than what he has stated.

The sequence of commands was recorded by the 911 call. I hardly think "get on the ground" comes after I SEE A GUN. Getting on the ground will be promptly taken care of by the bullet holes.

Remember my remark about "getting a little thin"? If you think I'm grinding an axe, go find it for me. :popcorn:

Yeah, I don't think so. The commands are in response to what Scott was doing.

What about the FATAL levels of RX meds in Scott's system?

OLY-M4gery
05-13-2011, 19:29
OK, I've had enough of this. I don't know why you insist on inserting your BS into everything I say. If you can't or won't understand what I'm saying and only want to throw insults, do it with someone else. :shakehead: :stop: :notlistening:

Sounds an awful lot like you are the one that has problems when your point of view is questioned.

The not listening logo is great.

Scott pulled out his gun, still in the holster and started raising it towards one of the officers. Some witnesses say it got pointed at about the officer's feet, some say higher.

None of your "conlficting command" theory includes anyone asking him to point the gun at anybody. If Scott was trying to drop the gun, there was no reason for it to point anywhere but at the ground.

BlackPaladin
05-13-2011, 19:53
You know what, it does not matter. The BG was dumb and got what he had coming for setting the scene of his own demise, end of story.

ray9898
05-14-2011, 11:14
I can't believe this is still being debated. When the facts came out this was as clear cut justified as a situation can be.

I understand some want to blame the incident on 'misleading commands' from the officer but that is not likely due to the numerous accounts from officers and witnesses of Scott actually pointing the gun. Even if he misunderstood some 'drop the gun' command that would not explain his actions of drawing and pointing.

Morris
05-14-2011, 21:19
I never did figure it out through all the noise: was he really SF or just some wannabe with some military experience?

Lord Grey Boots
05-14-2011, 21:58
I never did figure it out through all the noise: was he really SF or just some wannabe with some military experience?

West point grad, but was separated early for medical reasons I think.

JimBianchi
05-14-2011, 22:53
West Point Grad 1994, USA Armor Tank Platoon Leader, awarded Army Achievement Medal.

He got out for during the early out offered under the Clinton Admin. His dad Bill said he finally took the 3rd offer, so by my recollection that would be 1996/7. (I personally was pressured also at this time to get out and fought and stayed. I turned down $30K to exit early) , but I don't know how long Erik served.

EOD3
05-16-2011, 11:57
swatbwana: It's probably too late but I would like to apologize to you for my remarks in this thread. My use of "flipped out" was completely inappropriate and undoubtedly the beginning of a downward spiral that was both unnecessary and counter-productive.

I've had the opportunity to read a number of your posts and I think we see eye to eye on a great many things. Maybe some day we can down a few beers and tell some war stories.

Public screw-up, public apology... :sorry:


PS: In my world, Sarge is an honorific, NOT an insult.

Dragoon44
05-16-2011, 12:18
The part of the testimony that struck me was Eric's response to being told he could not carry a gun in the store.

“I’m a Green Beret. You need to read the (expletive) Constitution,’”

Wonder what gun forums this guy was hanging out at. He comes off sounding like your typical militant Oc'er who thinks that a store cannot violate his "2nd amendment rights"

EOD3
05-16-2011, 12:26
The part of the testimony that struck me was Eric's response to being told he could not carry a gun in the store.



Wonder what gun forums this guy was hanging out at. He comes off sounding like your typical militant Oc'er who thinks that a store cannot violate his "2nd amendment rights"

That sounds like a "ring-knocker" to me too but I'd also like to see the tapes from the "not working" loss-prevention cameras.


This is the "cry me a river" blog but I can't find a screen name to associate with Scott.

Mayhem like Me
05-16-2011, 13:45
swatbwana: It's probably too late but I would like to apologize to you for my remarks in this thread. My use of "flipped out" was completely inappropriate and undoubtedly the beginning of a downward spiral that was both unnecessary and counter-productive.

I've had the opportunity to read a number of your posts and I think we see eye to eye on a great many things. Maybe some day we can down a few beers and tell some war stories.

Public screw-up, public apology... :sorry:


PS: In my world, Sarge is an honorific, NOT an insult.

Accepted bro and I wish I was a Sarge....I would get more funtime in....
And yes I rate high on the "Difficult Meter" if you are in the ATL look me up for a trip to the Tilted Kilt....

TBO
12-27-2012, 14:41
Erik Scott's family files wrongful death lawsuit against Costco

http://www.lvrj.com/news/erik-scott-...158268755.html (http://www.lvrj.com/news/erik-scott-s-family-files-wrongful-death-suit-against-costco-158268755.html)

txleapd
12-27-2012, 14:47
Show me the money!!!!!


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

RussP
12-27-2012, 15:00
Gonna be interesting.

Dragoon44
12-27-2012, 15:28
Of course, everyone else is at fault not their prescription drug abusing\addicted son.

DaBigBR
12-27-2012, 15:34
Does a jury in a case involving Costco come in an 18 or 24 pack?

Morris
12-27-2012, 15:41
The suit is merely to generate a quick payout. Make negative noise for Costco and hope that Costco pays up quickly to shut up all involved parties.

They may find that it won't work.

Mayhem like Me
12-27-2012, 16:44
Notice the cops were dropped off ...they should sue the estate for trauma.

malleable
12-27-2012, 17:58
I haven't read all 9 pages of this thread but wasn't one of the LV METRO officers later termed for knowingly selling a firearm to a convicted felon?

rockapede
12-27-2012, 18:10
I haven't read all 9 pages of this thread but wasn't one of the LV METRO officers later termed for knowingly selling a firearm to a convicted felon?

I have no idea, but how is that relevant to the topic at hand?

ateamer
12-27-2012, 19:10
Does a jury in a case involving Costco come in an 18 or 24 pack?

Three juries in plastic wrap, but the court fees are about the same as for one jury...

trdvet
12-27-2012, 20:12
Of course, everyone else is at fault not their prescription drug abusing\addicted son.

But but but but but he went to West Point!!!!!!!!!

jpa
12-27-2012, 20:46
I haven't read all 9 pages of this thread but wasn't one of the LV METRO officers later termed for knowingly selling a firearm to a convicted felon?

Mendiola, yeah. Not the smartest move but still unrelated to this case.

I actually kinda wish callers would be held accountable more often for overstating the severity of a call. I'm tired of hearing "he got a gun" or "they got drugs" or "everyone's getting beat to death" just to get the police to come faster.

TBO
12-27-2012, 21:20
Here's the 911 calls if you want to listen:

http://www.lvrj.com/multimedia/Costco-shooting-911-calls-played-at-Erik-Scott-coroners-inquest-103659964.html

Marlowe
12-28-2012, 00:25
Anyone with any real street experience knows just how fast things like this unfold. There is nothing in the officers statement that is inconsistent with the way any experienced officer would know how quickly situations like this progress.

The officer was reacting and verbalizing in a situation going down in seconds, it's not like TV that slows everything down so the viewer can keep up and be able to understand what is happening.

If TV showed these incidents at the speed and confusion that these things typically occur the viewer would be sitting wondering "WTF just happened?"

Well said.

I don't know what was in the man's mind...but it's clear the officers reasonably perceived an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and were fully justified to use deadly force to stop that threat.

malleable
12-28-2012, 11:59
I have no idea, but how is that relevant to the topic at hand?

This thread is over 2 years old, it's not relevant just a question I had.

ray9898
12-28-2012, 13:12
Imagine that....they are unable to accept their prodigy child was an addict who made some deadly choices.

Patchman
12-28-2012, 19:16
I'm curious whatever happened to Scott's gf? And wonder what her role will be (if any) at the civil trial.

Defender77
12-30-2012, 01:54
I have a feeling her testimony may not be of much use as she stated initially the person shot was only taking or had taken such and such medication, when in fact he was found with xanax in his system etc.


If she testifies she is fair game to any questioning and may not want to be questioned under oath about what she knew or didn't know about the person shot that day re: any other drugs he might have taken.

ICARRY2
12-31-2012, 09:46
Hmmm.... the family had witnesses that said the leos were too quick to shoot, but wouldn't give names.

Sounds like a justified shooting to me. Tragic (fault lying with the Eric Scott), but justified.