Erik Scott Killing Sparks West Point Alums to Target Las Vegas Police
It was a foregone conclusion that a coroner’s inquest in Las Vegas would find three Metro police officers justified in gunning down Erik Scott in a hail of bullets outside of a crowded Costco on July 10, even though five of the seven bullets hit him from behind, and at least one appeared to have been fired while Scott lay prone, dead or dying on the ground.
Police were called to the store after an employee described Scott as both armed and acting as if he were under the influence of narcotics. As Scott and his girlfriend emerged from the store along with dozens of other shoppers, he was confronted by a trio of officers with weapons already drawn. Scott was identified by a Costco employee, and seconds later, Scott lay dead on the ground. These are the facts of the case that are not in dispute.
What is very much in dispute is whether or not Costco employees unnecessarily escalated the threat, whether the store chain’s unclear policies on customers carrying weapons and their employee training contributed to the events that led to Scott’s death, and whether or not police officers violated Erik Scott’s civil rights when they killed him in a confrontation that some argue was little more than an ambush or assassination.
Erik Scott’s family is expected to file a civil case against Costco, the Metro police, and the individual officers over his death, but that isn’t the only action being called for because of this incident. Metro has raised the ire of the the Long Gray Line — Erik Scott’s fellow graduates of the United States Military Academy.
Sources have provided PJM with copies of communications between members of the group. Alumni in the threaded discussion seem almost universally suspect of the coroner’s inquest process used in Las Vegas, where prosecutors and law enforcement control the witnesses called and the questions asked, and disallow cross-examination. Since 1976, law enforcement officers have been in front of the coroner’s inquest more than 200 times, and none has resulted in criminal charges being filed against an officer for even the most controversial shootings.
One alum wrote to the president of one of the larger West Point Society chapters:
I don’t know if you are aware of the tragic shooting of Eric Scott ‘94 in Las Vegas not long ago. It looks more and more like a police screw up and cover up on top of that. We are trying to bring as much political pressure to bear, as possible, to make sure the “truth” comes out.
Another suggested that members bring the Scott case to the attention of West Point and Naval Academy graduates in Congress: Rep. John Shimkus, Rep. Joe Sestak, Rep. Geoff Davis, Rep. Brett Guthrie, Senator Jack Reed, Senator John McCain, and Senator Jim Webb, and well as Nevada’s Congressional delegation, plus Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy and Chairman of the House Judicial Committee John Conyers. (Interestingly enough, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s name was never mentioned.)
Mr. Owens,
Some relevant facts about this incident would be nice. For example:
1. What did his girlfriend witness, and what did she say happened?
2. Was the victim’s gun ever drawn or touched by him throughout this entire incident?
3. If he was making people uncomfortable enough to call the police, why didn’t he simply leave the store right away?
4. Was he asked to leave the store sooner than he actually did leave?
5. If he was not acting strangely or belligerently, why whould somebody say that in the first call to the police?
It is very important that the whole truth be told about all involved parties, including the victim. That is the best way to clean up a police force.
I think we will see a lot of these facts come out in a venue where cross-examination is allowed.
Why don’t you do a search, and you can find the information you want. It’s amazing reading some of the comments here. You people must be new to PJM.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gunned-down-in-vegas-what-really-happened-to-erik-scott/
No video cameras from the cop cars or Costco, and Costco claims all four video cameraa were some on the fritz just days before? What is the LVP excuse for no video? Shot in the back? As a veteran, yes indeed there are many questions that need to be answered, truthfully.
Would you ask the same questions if the victim was Black? Muslim? Female? Gay? The Fact that he was legally armed is not reason to eject someone from a store. How many minorities have you seen belligerent after an incident? Have you insisted they be arrested or shot? Your questions are out of line.
No, those questions would not have to be answered as there would have been no shooting or if there had been there’d have been either a flood of video to show it was justified or an instant condemnation by the LVPD of the officers involved.
In either case, the ACLU, NAACP, CAIR, and a host of other “interest groups” would have cried “discrimination” and called for the immediate and public humiliation, trial, and death of the officers involved as well as crucifying CostCo for causing the death of a “minority”.
But because the victim is white, male, and a (former) military man to boot, everything is hush hush and those responsible will never face the consequences of their decisions and acts.
Oh, bullshit.
Your a cop arent you Bill?Iam a white guy from a white town and the some of the stuff Ive heard about cops sometimes from cops is outright scary.I personaly had a cop from my county pressure me to lie about my neighbor who’s house I cant even see from my house…cops are definetly above the law and should be held to a HIGHER ACCOUNTABILITY than a standard citizen.As far as im concerned its like joining the army you defend citizens lives at the possible expense of your own and that is NOT their mentality.They save their own a** 1st.
Would you ask the same questions if the victim was Black? Muslim? Female? Gay? The Fact that he was legally armed is not reason to eject someone from a store. How many minorities have you seen belligerent after an incident? Have you insisted they be arrested or shot? Your questions are out of line.
First: Carrying a gun is a chosen thing. Being black, etc. is not.
Second: Ejecting someone from your property is your prerogative, and that prerogative is not contingent upon someone else’s approval of one’s reasons. Freedom of Association 101: everyone has the right to set their own terms, and everyone has the right to accept or reject someone else’s terms but not their right to set them.
So you questions are not merely out of line, they indicate a total ignorance of the nature of freedom.
Here’s a clue for you: freedom means that others may make reach different conclusions from you, and may make choices that you don’t like, including setting dumb rules for access to their property. That’s how it works.
I’m all in favor of the right of self-defense (Second Amendment 101) and I have severe concerns about the conduct of Costco and LV Metro here (that Costco is the nearest one to me), but moronic arguments like these serve to undercut liberty, not support it.
OK, truth.
COSTCO video system broken.
ALL police car dash cams broken.
Police recording machine incapable of recording evidence of police guilt.
Las Vegas Police are not corrupt.
Richard Nixon is Presiden of the United States.
I just read that there were many onlookers. I would bet that there were several eye witness to the event.
I’ve read everything i can find on this incident. From the sound of it, what a sordid tale of corruption in the Las Vegas PD! It sounds as if the Costco employee didn’t like being ignored, then wildly embellished his/her story in order to get the prompt attention of authorities, and then those authorities wildly over-reacted, jumped to the wrong conclusions, and then hideously slaughtered this man in cold blood.
We get wall-to-wall front page coverage day after day in the NYTs about a possible act of brutality by Americans in a war zone, a subject on which they have erroneously reported breathlessly on before – and perhaps I missed it, but i haven’t seen the slightest mention of a fine sounding upstanding US citizen being gunned down in cold blood by an American police force in that hard Left megaphone…
Oh wait! … the guy wasn’t part of one of the special protected victim-classes. Had he been an illegal, a Muslim, or God forbid, a black man, we’d never hear the end of this atrocity, and police guilt would already be a foregone conclusion. I’m not saying they are guilty, but it’s very easy to see a plausible story that fits with the idea.
LVPD have also gunned down “illegals” and blacks under highly questionable circumstances, and you won’t read about that in the New York Times either (although you can find reports in the local newspapers’ archives if you bother to look). This race-bating is more than pointless, I think it is an attempt to distract from the problem of a thuggish and corrupt police force.
There must be some decent police officers of conscience on the LVPD who are angered by the misconduct of some of their fellow officers. THEY are the ones who should be strenuously registering their complaints and dissatisfaction with their superiors.
We can’t expect moderate Muslims to speak out against radical Muslims if our own police officers are too wussy to speak out against the outrageous misconduct of a few of their own.
The honorable police officers in the LVPD will never say a word. Why?
One word: Unions
Those that know and remain silent are a guilty as those who did the deed! UCMJ
If they are honest they will tell the truth, whatever the truth is. Some cops don’t realize that they are judged by the company they keep, and if they hide crime behind a blue line they are as bad ass the scum they arrest. Think pervert and child molester.
It’s even more direct than unions. The so-called “Blue Wall of Silence” happens because cops know that if they come out against the bad apples in their department, calls for backup are likely to go unanswered. That kind of thing can get you killed.
I’m critical of these officers, too, but am currently leaning heavier toward a position where IMO they may have received inaccurate and misleading information and were thus “set up” to make a critical and deadly decision for which they were unprepared. I think I’ll wait for more cross-examination results before forming a final opinion of Metro. Meanwhile, I would certanly recommend extreme wariness if one must be in LV for any reason.
Bill Gannon,
The audiotapes released by the police show they opened fire TWO SECONDS after first yelling at the deceased. The only excuse for that is that he either had his weapon in his hand or drew it immediately upon being yelled at. The police admit his gun was not in his hand or drawn. The shooting angles show, from the way the bullets entered Erik Scott’s body, that his arms were in positions such that he was not drawing his weapon.
Here is an excerpt from the audiotapes at the Confederate Yankee link showing that the LVPD officers opened fire two seconds after spotting Erik Scott:
“14:05 (SL): “Yes, he’s about ten feet away. I see the officer standing at the door right now.”
14:07 (D): “Who is?”
14:08 (SL): “I see the officers right now.”
14:09 (D): “You see them?”
14:10 (SL): “Yes.”
14:11 (D): “And do they see him?”
14:12 (SL): “Ah, negative.”
14:13 (D): “Have they walked out the door right now? What is that guy doing right this…”
14:16 (Unidentified Officer’s Voice(s) in Background): “Put your hands where I see them now, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground…”
[At 14:18, multiple, rapidly fired gunshots can be clearly heard in the background.]”
I.e., the police panicked and gunned Erik Scott down immediately upon recognizing him. He had no chance at all. The analysis by Mike McDaniel at Confederate Yankee additionally shows it was surprising, if not a miracle, that the officers did not shoot each other and some bystanders in the process. Note McDaniel’s reference to the circular firing squad:
“If Scott was in fact between Mendiola and Start and Mosher as would be required by the scenario I’ve suggested, the officers were essentially a circular firing squad, and Mosher was in the most immediate danger of being hit by friendly fire, particularly as Scott’s body dropped to the ground as his fellow officers poured fired into the rapidly diminishing target of his back. If this is indeed the case, and with what is known, it seems the most likely scenario, the three officers are fortunate indeed that they did not shoot themselves or innocent bystanders.”
Tom Holsinger: I read the same excerpt. Just a little further along the security person made a statement to the dispatcher that Mr. Scott had drawn his weapon, which conflicts with the evidence you cite. I’m suspicious of the veracity of that claim, as well as the primary officer’s radioed statement saying the same thing. But both of those statements are there and until rebutted or proven false must be considered.
I think the three officers were not expecting Mr. Scott to be among the evacuees and were suddenly facing an unknown and [in their minds] highly charged situation. All three over-reacted, but the second and third officers reactions were the most telling. They say they each shot Mr. Scott without seeing his weapon. Just that the primary shot and they “backed him up” [my words]. If that isn’t a department culture designed to cover-up, lie and deceive, I’ve never seen one.
Bill,
I said the Las Vegas police admit that Erik Scott had not drawn his gun, not that everyone did. The Costco personnel have well impeached their own statements – I expect Costco to settle long before trial – quite possibly before any lawsuit is filed. Mrs. Fee’s statements are contradicted by the bullet trajectories in Mr. Scott’s wounds.
Additionally, every person who came forward at the scene and had visual contact with Mr. Scott stated that no weapon was drawn! In fact, they state that the police were yelling conflicting statements and orders to Mr. Scott creating confusion – not only for Mr. Scott – but for themselves. Moreover, many on the scene would testify that the police acted in a menacing and extremely provocative manner escalating the situation. This is police misconduct to the core and more of this is going on around the country as we fulfill the quota system outlined by federal mandates, which by the way reduces the police force down to nothing more than dummy squads. Ask the good folks in Chicago if they support and trust their city police force! They’ll tell you straight -
I agree with you on that — but nothing in that excuses the coverup that is apparently going on, or the cooperation in that coverup between the PD, the Coroner’s office, and Costco.
They are all scared to death of the potentials on this. If they could click their heels and make it go away, they would. Until that happens they are in “protection” mode and the truth will not be easily obtained. An imperfect system, yes. To overcome that we have the courts. Another imperfect system.
You’re correct to think that. However, that does not excuse the police for their actions. The fact that they were unprepared for his appearance speaks volumes.
1) They should have had an officer (or several) inside the store observing his movements and determining for themselves whether he was a threat or not. Instead, they relied entirely upon the reports of the LPO, who clearly lied about his behavior. Had they taken that one reasonable precaution, we would not be discussing Erik’s death today. And they had plenty of time to do so and plenty of officers to do it with.
2) They never should have set up an ambush at the exit and entrance to the store when they had requested that Costco evacuate and they knew that many customers would be in their field of fire.
3) Once Erik left the store and was pointed out to them, they should have observed his behavior to determine if he was a threat. They could have easily followed him with guns drawn prepared to fire at the slightest hint of a threat. They would have ended up following him all the way to his car, where he was headed to secure his firearm.
4) Having failed to perform all those reasonable steps and having chosen to confront him under the worst possible circumstances (surrounded by innocent civilians with no safe backdrop), they should have given him one order and one order only – put your hands were I can see them – if he reached for his gun, they should have followed up with DO NOT TOUCH YOUR WEAPON! I WILL SHOOT YOU!
They didn’t even give him that courtesy. They yelled conflicting orders at him and shot him before he had a chance to even respond to them.
“Coroner’s Incest” is more like it…..
it is hard to make an evaluation without knowing the facts of this case. but. if in fact these officers and the costco employees acted impropperly then of course they should all be punnished to the fullest extent of the law,
I hope Scott’s family own Costco and the NV PD. And the jerk off store employee that embellished the situation to fit their nanny state agenda.
I hope the family ads slander and reckless endangerment to the suit against the individual Costco employees.
Did anyone bother to ask why the police did not simply taser Scott if they thought he was a threat? Scott did not have a drawn weapon in his hand as he was leaving the store and was confronted by the police officers (three of them). Why didn’t one officer try to taser Scott while the other two officers cover the third officer with drawn weapons? Seems like all of this could have been easily avoided since Scott did NOT have a drawn weapon and Scott did not present a threat to anybody else when leaving the store. This is just shoddy police work and all of the police officers involved with this case should be fired and charged with murder, or, at the very least, manslaughter.
Read the inquest findings, Mr. Ignorant, and you will see that the perp did draw his pistol and it was pointed at an officer when the cops blew the perp away. You don’t taze a suspect with a gun in his hand, and you don’t taze him before ordering hom to put his hands up, get on his knees, and flatten out.As soon as he goes for his gun, you grease him. Or he greases you. Your choice.
This clown had near lethal levels of two drugs in his bloodstream. He was a loadie, obtaining drugs illegally by floating from one physician to another.
He was a scofflaw, doing whatever he wanted, right or wrong.
Officers formed a sort of triangle, one in front of the perp, one at one side, and one behind him. When the perp drew on the cop in front of him, the cop in back of the perp shot the perp several times in the back, to protect the cop in front of the perp. At the inquest, click on it, the girlfriend failed to show and the witnesses corroborated the cops’ testimony.
The moral to the story is simple: When a police officer points his gun at you, do what he tells you to do. Do not go for your gun.This clown said, “I’m disarming myself”, as he pulled out his gun. Was he? We will never know, will we? Should the cops have waited to see if the guy who failed to put his hands up, get on his knees and flatten out was going to shoot them or not? At a distance of two or three feet they would have had plenty of time to react defensively, wouldn’t they? And, once they had his #1 gun, what plans did he have for his #2, unlicensed, gun? As the inquest found, this thing went down right. Now all you cop hating ignorami can go back to your fantasy football and play “Lets Pretend- I’m a Man”
That is untrue. He did not draw the gun or move his hands at all. The police made a stupid mistake and it cost a good citizen his life.
Read the inquest testimony, stupid.
At the inquest the police testified, and witnesses corroborated that the perp drew his pistol and ponted it at a cop. If you can read, check it out.
White Tiger: If you’re joking, it’s a terrible joke indeed. If you’re serious, you sir have your facts WRONG and you should be shunned forever more on this blog as you are an imbecile. Get out of here and go back and climb into a hole where you came from! Your type is the reason and ailment that this nation suffers and is in peril. Little wonder why tragedies like this happen with such a mind set and misinformation. I have read the reports and the reports are bogus! Trust the observers on the scene who’s statements all match up – the police have been caught in a ruse -
Ignorance kills. Go, sir, to the inquest results, click on it, then eat your ignorant words.
You have foolishly allowed a yellowpage liar to inflame you with disinformation, partial truths and facts withheld. Bob Owens is a flake and a half.
I watched all six days of the inquest. You are grossly misrepresenting the testimony, as can clearly been seen by my account in this thread. This is either deliberate or you are biased.
Get a grip, Tiger, or soon we’re going to see on the news that you went postal on us.
(Tiger? LOL. Meeeow!)
Must be a pig. Filthy maggot swill.
What a travesty.
Las Vegas Metro isn’t even trying to be discrete about their whitewash of this killing. Every recording of this incident instantly erased or lost – whoops!
Mr. Scott was not a Preferred Species. What makes ANYONE think that there will be ANY type of federal investigation or civil rights case? Just exactly HOW DUMB are you?
Don’t vacation in Vegas — Don’t buy at COSTCO — Until this matter is decently taken care of keep pressing for a full investigation.
One infers that Scott emerged from the store carrying a weapon. Why did he have a weapon? Did he refuse to drop it when asked? The author does not tell us. Why is that? According to Owens the cops just came to the store and shot a man for no reason. This article reads like it was written by a dishonest leftist. Pajamas Media can do better.
Terry, did you read the article? Erik had a license to carry his weapon. He walked out the store and was shot before he could react.
The police were called by a store employee who had noticed that Erik had a gun. No one has given evidence that Erik was threatening people in the store.
You should read more carefully.
Terry, did you read the article? Erik had a license to carry his weapon. He walked out the store and was shot before he could react.
The article? You mean did I read the previous article – the one not referred to here – which I presume contains those details. Well obviously I did not. My criticism stands. This is sloppy reporting.
Terry, get you head out of your ass and read the backup material. Of course if you want to be spoon-fed, Obama wats you.
This is a follow-up article. Criticizing the author because you didn’t read the previous article is a bit misguided. A link back to the other article may be appropriate, but I didn’t check links on this.
Well, it’s obvious some people must be spoon fed their news. Makes me wonder why they are here.
read the original story from Sept 16:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gunned-down-in-vegas-what-really-happened-to-erik-scott/
several important details that were left out of today’s column
Maybe if you got off your ass and read Owens’ and McDaniel’s numerous postings that answer all of your question and then some, instead of roasting Owens for not spoon-feeding it to you, you wouldn’t have these questions.
Actually I do most of my reading on my ass. Not clear to me why the author could not have made reference to his previous article. I doubt that you got off your ass to go look for it. Why would you assume the rest of us would have read it?
I have to admit I was unaware of any previous article concerning this subject as well. It probably would have helped had the author included a link back at the beginning of this article to people could be aware of the previous one.
When I read the story, it sounded very serious. I used a service called Google. You might have heard of it. It’s pretty handy for finding related articles.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/testimony-focuses-erik-scotts-use-prescription-dru/
Dr. Alane Olson, a medical examiner in the Clark County Coroner’s Office, testified that Scott had a number of drugs in his system when he died. The levels of morphine and xanax found by a toxicology screen conducted after his death were very high and potentially lethal, she said.
Click to enlarge photo
Steve Marcus
Dr. Alane Olson, a medical examiner for the coroner’s office, testifies about gunshot wounds during a coroner’s inquest at the Regional Justice Center Wednesday, September 22, 2010.
The levels also indicated that he had likely built up a tolerance to the drugs over time, she said.
Supports the prior claim they made to justify all their actions. Just how believable is that? Personal experience with overzealous officers and coerced testimony tells me otherwise.
It will come as a great shock to some the kneejerk ‘America is always best’ jingoists who post here that what you say is true, but it is. Cops lie, manipulate statements, take classes in how to functionally cancel Miranda, and then will lie again on the stand to protect their version of arrests and fellow officers.
The ‘police’ once had a restraining order in place ‘for me’ because of some testimony compelled during a manufactured arrest. The statement was written by the officers for me to sign…although it was accurate, it left out all the mitigating detail (which would have supported a brutality charge), hence the ‘restraining order’. I found out about the restraining order several months after the case was disposed. All resulted from a couple reacting to an officer exceeding his authority…no one was shot though.
Sounds very plausible, based on my experience. I would also say it very much depends on what you are accused of and where; and how aggressive the DAs and judges are towards those accused for a particular alleged offense. If the cops come to arrest you on a charge that they know is likely to lead to a conviction because of some of these factors, then your goose is basically cooked. And, as you have said, NEVER talk to them without a lawyer. Just nod and say ‘have a nice day.’ We learn the hard way, brother.
A few years ago I was an active duty Army Officer when my wife had a similar experience when she was 8-months pregnant with our first child. She was roughed up by an overzealous officer who thought she was trespassing on federal property, but wasn’t. After a near miscarriage, dropped charges and $5,000 legal fees, the “honorable” officer was dismissed from the force a year later for related behavior. While we got lucky and the officer was eventually dismissed, it left a vacuous feeling – we saw the ugly side of “law enforcement.”
Lessons learned:
1) Do what the police say, they are armed and will use force
2) If wrong, they have a daunting legal system, other officers (who can, and in our case – will lie) on their side – so cooperate or be the recipient of gratuitous violent force
3) File a proper grievance or complaint though multiple channels, and follow them up. You may not immediately win, but it can establish a pattern of behavior for others to win.
4) Always have a good attitude and PEACE BE WITH YOU
Which would be expected since he was a long-term pain patient. He’d been on opiates for several years because of serious damage to his back he suffered in the Army. Guys like him have a hard time with law enforcement because the more opiates he needs to keep the pain down to function, the more he risks running afoul of drug regulations. A number of doctors were prosecuted a few years ago for treating people like him. The DEA said the levels of opiates were unprofessional, despite the fact that the individuals being treated had 10-20 year old irreparable injuries and by that point, no one can function on the DEA’s low-balled dosages.
Carry laws in most states are pretty specific about excluding CCW permission while not in complete control of one’s full faculties. Tragically this may have played a key role in this situation. Possibly time will clarify this question.
Bill Gannon
“Carry laws in most states are pretty specific about excluding CCW permission while not in complete control of one’s full faculties. Tragically this may have played a key role in this situation. Possibly time will clarify this question.”
According to what I have read about this tragedy, which is everything I could find, Erik Scott’s behaviour was not in any way exceptional or objectionable. This is borne out by the assertion that the waiting cops didn’t see any customers “acting up”, and in fact had to have Erik Scott pointed out to them after he and his GF exited. Therefore, any reference to drugs as possible cause for the cop’s actions is surely beside the point. The tox report appears irrelevant except as a means to provide cover after the fact.
Considering Mr.Scott’s background, he may have thought he was dealing with professionals when he attempted to comply with the police request to ‘drop it’. Obviously, and fatally, he was not.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Penny, are you omitting the ME’s autopsy reports as to drug levels found to be on board Mr. Scott’s remains? And are you also ignoring the RP’s initial information to dispatch that Mr. Scott was acting “weirdly”, or some such description? The first point can be easily mitigated by further expert testimony, IMHO, but the second point, coupled with a distinct lack of corrective feedback by the dispatcher to the responders, can too easily be used by the officers to demonstrate a heightened sense of danger state of mind which led them to make inappropriate – but reasonable – operational decisions that then proved fatal.
In addition, as a former CCW permit holder, I find it a trifle odd that Mr. Scott may have also possessed a “back-up” concealed weapon. What’s up with that?
Does the name Mike Nifong ring any bells? No, prosecutors never collude with laboratories to “fix” evidence, do they?
One protective society (ring-knockers) vs. another protective society (LVPD). If the man weren’t dead as a result, I’d ask for popcorn. As noted above the recordings have vanished, and the whitewash is on.
Actually 1 vs. 2 protective societies: ring-knockers vs. both LV elected public officials (mayor, etc.) and their political appointees (police chief, etc.) as well as a public employees union (LVPD union). The latter is usually tougher and much less willing to compromise it’s us-first rule, no matter the morality or legality of the situation.
So the ring-knockers are the underdog, but if they get serious, it is not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog…
Indeed, a tragedy.
But, being confronted in a crowd of shoppers, and being fired at with ‘a hail of bullets’ and no one else hit with a stray shot?
I agree. It boggles the mind. Three officers in a semi-circle firing towards each other and only Mr. Scott was hit. Were they each maybe four feet away from him or so? Were they taken by surprise? Are odds at a Las Vegas casino’s craps tables house friendly?
The only appeal to justice now is the Detroit-Watts-Newark solution that worked so well in the 1960s: whites must mass along the strip and burn it down. Then there will be a civilian review board for when whites are murdered by the cops; programs to lessen racial tensions between the multicult cops and whites; and special “noon golf” programs to occupy white youth.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/
The last witness to testify today was Barbara Fee, who was waiting in line with her granddaughter when they were told to evacuate the store.
Her granddaughter pointed out that there was an officer with a gun by the door.
Fee said she heard the officer yelling at Scott to get down, but he didn’t.
She saw Scott reach for something on his side and then bring his right hand up and point something directly at the officer.
Fee said she couldn’t tell what was in Scott’s hand, but his hand was pointed, “directly at the cop.”
The officer fired, and she looked away while pushing her granddaughter behind her, Fee said.
When she looked back, she saw Scott face-down on the ground and a black object on the ground.
After the shots were fired, she heard a woman screaming, “You shot him, you killed him.”
Fee said she was worried Scott was going to shoot the officer.
So Ms. Fee testified to seeing Scott do something that the COPS THEMSELVES deny he did? Compelling witness.
“A letter composed by one of the officers has been submitted to Thomas E. Perez”
Where have I seen that name before?
Good news. The West Point alumns will set things right. I hope some of those LVPD bastards go to jail for what they did.
I’m a Grad and we think all Academy Grads….(from all 5 Acad.s) should boycott Vegas or make it clear of their discontent with the process as well the as actions of both Costco and Metro.
Metro knew there would be alot of people around. They clearly setup their fileds of fire or in other words, they set up an ambush for a crazy man. Unfortunately for METRO, a very calm Man exited Costco. COSTCO has responsibility here for essentially “yelling fire” here, COSCTO painted a picture of a crazy man indiscriminately destroying merchandise and threatening people with a gun. Scott exited the store under store directives for all custimers to calmly exit. In fact, a EMPLOYEE had to point out who Scott was to METRO. METRO had several choices, use non-lethal means to subdue him…follow him to his car thus reducing potential collateral damage..to name just two.
The INQUEST was used for character assasination of Scott. It ignored very poor judgement on the part of METRO and COSTCO. It totally IGNORED the fact that Scott was retrieving his gun HOLSTERED to submit/drop as he was directed to do. The officers got away with murder using the old “I felt threatened”, and, ” I thought he was a threat to others”.
This was an execution.
You’re upset and I’m not justifying anything, but you may be mistaken about the “set-up a field of fire” thing. From the evidence currently available it looks like the officers who shot thought they were involved with evacuating all other customers from the store preparatory for another team to do the actual entry and take-down of a “possibly disturbed person holding a gun”. When they suddenly realized the “disturbed person” had unremarkedly walked right past two of them, they mistakenly assumed they were caught a deadly situation. In essence they panicked. I admit this could also be a “cover” story, but I will wait for more actual facts before forming an opinion on that.
I also admit if the above scenario is true the shooting officers still acted very unprofessionally. Particularly the second and third officers, who apparently only shot because the other officer suddenly fired two rounds. And IMHO it’s this joint and telling CYA re-action by II and III, if borne out by forensic analysis, that will ultimately bury Metro’s fairy tale and bring a just resolution to this tragedy.
That’s a logical argument, Bill, but what happened to the tape. How did it happen that Costco’s excellent taping system went defunct just for these seconds or minutes? It’s unbelievable = not credible.
“Too convenient” to be credible in my view. These points will require major testimonial support in the upcoming lawsuit, and even that might not be enough to overcome the stench to a fair jury – whatever that is in Nevada.
The LPO made frequent updates to the 911 operator who then relayed those reports to the on the scene officers. His position in the store was constantly updated so that the officer could not possibly have thought that they were waiting for the evacuation to complete before entering the store to confront the subject. The only surprise the officers had was that, when Erik exited the store, they failed utterly to identify him. There’s only one rational reason for that. Because Erik’s behavior was so unremarkable that it bore not the slightest resemblance to the man who had been described to them over the radio.
At that point, a good, honorable officer would ask himself what the heck is going on. This officer chose instead to confront Erik as though he were a felony suspect with gun in hand.
LVPD versus the second amendment. minorities have been complaining about off the hook police for years,you know they’re bad when they gun down a white man in cold blood.
Gosh…what a coincidence. Las Vegas is the last place in America where security camera “malfunction” and Costco is the last retailer to let their cameras go down for days.
They practically frisk you before you leave their store.
This stinks like a dead fish.
Funny how everytime a democrat agenda holds congress and the white house Police begin killing white folks.
Ruby Ridge, and Waco come to mind.
It’s not the current administration, but the lame-brain retards empowered to act as they will by its being in office that are a day-to-day problem for Americans.
The first account of this incident I read seemed to indicate that this shooting was unjustified. More facts have been persented in this article that makes me wonder if my first assumption was correct.
1. Even though Scott had a carry license, it would have been wise of him to just go ahead and leave the store when asked. He was obviously making people there nervous and leaving the store would have possibly precluded the incident that ultimately happened.
2. His holstered pistol was found lying on the pavement apart from his body. Did he remove his holstered pistol at some point during the encounter and point it anywhere in the direction of the police officers. Some holsters have cutouts that allow access to the trigger, which means the pistol could be fired even though still in the holster. If Scott pointed that hostered pistol in the direction of the officers, he was guaranteeing that he would be shot.
3. Even though there were various commands from the police, he needed to keep his hands in plain sight, and getting down onto the ground would have been a good idea.
The truth will come out in the civil trial. But for now it is starting to look like Scott’s own actions during the encounter with police may leave him responsible for his own death. How sad.
["The truth will come out in the civil trial."]
It already has. Some just can’t handle the truth.
Erik started the incident, and could have easily ended it with many different favorable behaviors. But no, he had to pull out a firearm in front of the police. How much privileged education does one need to realize that’s not a good idea?
A ‘civil trial’ didn’t do much for the victims of O.J., did it.
I surmise an out of court settlement with OUR tax dollars, will present itself.
We agree that Scott started the incident, and, for the reasons I outlined, the police may have been justified in shooting him. When we hear from all the witnesses, we will have a better picture of what happened. So far. there seems to be a lot of blame to spread around, and differing testimony as to what happened.
When Scott was on the ground, shot twice in the chest, there would be no justification for shooting him multiple times in the back unless he was still holding the gun/holstered gun. That could be viewed as a threat by the police. If that was not the case, then the justification for continued use of deadly force no longer existed.
Indeed.
Many witnesses did testify, like Barbara Fee. Why would her eye witness assertion be suspect? Erik’s family apparently had a list of witnesses they wished called at the inquest, but would not give the list to the judge. Why would that be?? A tactical move by counsel for future litigation, perhaps?
A civil trial may take years to materialize. People move, people die, over time people forget details, memories will enrich themselves……the truth will not get any better than NOW and no matter whom investigates, some will not be contented unless they hear what they wish for.
I’m x-law enforcement…20+ years. I carry a concealed firearm just about everywhere.I have often wondered how an officer would react to a call of an armed man at the cat food isle at Wallmart.(me) It probably would pay to listen and obey the requests of the officers…Reaching for my Glock wouldn’t be a good idea! That said, Costco should be charged with tampering with evidence as too the officers’ whom video and audio tape was erased or “just not working for those few seconds”. As to the smuck who made the initial report of an armed and dangerous madman at the deli counter I have nothing but pity on for he is guilty of having this guy killed. Sad,very sad indeed.
This is a clear example of why our founding fathers framed the Bill of Rights the way they did. The first 10 amendments were suppose to protect us from our government and politically motivated law enforcement; or in this case, kneejerk, poorly trained police officers. Take away these rights and the people (in this case his family) will not have any recourse to pursue those that broke the law. And the officers will be free to commit this act again. They will try to hide behind their badge and some civil service workers union but if the eyewitnesses support the report that he was holstered and non threatening then the badge is too small to hide behind.
Paid police officers did not happen for decades after the signing of the Constitution. Police officers are “statutory constructions of the law.” Meaning they are ordinary citizens with only the statutes to back them up. Perhaps you might consider that you are really complaining that police have become a “standing army” in violation of the constitution. This standing army being increasingly granted de facto immunity to sanction their enforcement actions.
So how did LVMPD get all the witnesses of the shooting to perjure themselves?
They only used the one witness in the inquest (or so it sounds) TO THE DISMAY OF THE DEFENSE ATTY.
Simple, they found the one that told the story that they liked, and ignored all the others.
Memory is by no means infallible. In fact, the process of calling up a memory changes it. That is why the video evidence would be so crucial here. In fact, their one witness’ testimony doesn’t jive with the 911 recording that we do have.
In the old days, I would have said that many police couldn’t or wouldn’t have fabricated a story to cover up their malicious and foolhardy actions. I’m not sure if you know the story of the Polish guy who was tasered and died at the Vancouver airport – many RCMP fabricated stories to cover up what really happened, story follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dziekanski
I am a graduate of The Citadel, Class of ’65, and I will be damned if I ever go into another COSTCO.
It is very disappointing that Pajamas Media is publishing this factless nonsense. Owens failed, again, to mention that Scott was illegally abusing prescription drugs at the time and the coronor’s report stated that Scott’s system was full of prescrition pain killers. Owens is also ignoring all statements by witnesses who contradict his giant conspiracy theory and who describe Scott strange behavior before the shooting. Owens also ignores all the witnesses who stated that Scott drew his weapon and pointed at police officers.
What you call facts, I call opinion. Doctors that aren’t in chronic pain themselves really only have their patients tales to describe pain, tolerance and drug efficacy. It’s medical opinion not fact. Clearly LVPD did their homework to justify their actions. It’s easy for the police to pressure a desired response out of anyone. The defense had more than twenty witnesses, some very close (not at a checkout isle) that weren’t allowed to offer testimony that he was told to place his gun on the ground, coupled with all the suspicious technical failures, raises doubt. you strike me as a dupe with no real world experience. In the end Scott was partly responsible for the outcome, but he should not be dead.
Please explain how the LVMPD were able to “Jedi mind trick” the witnesses into saying what they testified to under oath regarding Erik Scott’s actions.
Mr. Owens,
Why do you leave out all the relevant facts of the case that do not support your agenda? Do you dispute the toxicology report that showed the large quantity of mind altering drugs present in Mr. Scott’s system at the time of his death?
From your article, the (single)witness moved from the back of the store to the front where she observed what was going on presumably while still in the store(otherwise she would have been in the firing line and running for cover). So if Scott was told to put the weapon on the ground as was maintained by other witnesses, Kullberg would have seen him take the gun from his back and then what she saw as to pointing the gun would depend entirely on how Scott was positioned. At that point it’s easy to see how the Jedi mind trick would come into play (reinforcement of what one believes one saw through ‘effective’ questioning). The only eye witness cited in your article was also an employee. Others that witnessed from the street saw and heard something entirely different, or so its claimed in other articles.
One likely scenario is Scott ticked off/belittled the store employee in the original encounter, and the employee embellished his story to ‘screw’ the guy…I’ve seen this type of manipulation of the ‘truth’ before as well.
Regardless, he should not be dead. It was excessive force.
Back before Alaska went to Vermont gun laws, a person with a concealed carry permit was slammed into the wall and then the floor by the Ketchikan Police, as the result of a similar over reaction by a clerk in one of the local stores. I later spoke with her, and she had a psychotic fear and hatred of firearms. No, Scott did not need to have done anything to set off a nutcase.
A good attorney would dispute the toxicology report without an independent lab analysis, especially given all the other ‘technology’ failures.
Ever worked with someone on those drugs for long term injuries or chronic pain? I can tell from personal experience with old SF guys and others that some of them end up taking multiples of xanex/percocet/others with no more effect than a cup of coffee for you or me.
Whereas you are ignoring….
yeah, you figure it out, dumbo.
Federale,
Your an idiot. I have seen your posts all over the internet. Beating the ,”he was on drugs” drum. His under the influence was ALLEGED at the time by the costco security guarg who changed his tune thruout the 9-1-1 call. Officers never had eye’s on this guy the entire time he was in the store, even though they were there for 10 minutes before the shooting. The drugs only came into play after this man was shot to death. Carrying under the influence is a felony, but not punishable by death. Scott never had prescriptions from more than one doctor at a time. The DA’s office even tried to assassinate the girlfriends character by using her prescription info, and the fact she worked for a doctor Scott had never had a presciption for. The DEA’s own system that keeps track of classed narcotics confirmed this.
What is going on in the Las Vegas Police Department and this non-investigation is simply CRIMINAL. Congress MUST do whatever is necessary to get involved. This was a pure case of negligent, homicide.
At the very least these police officers MUST be removed from the force, and the entire LV Police Department undergo rigorous examination and re-training. One other thing, the Chief must GO!
Please get Congress involved! They’re the most ethical we’ve ever had. Maybe they can all sing around the camp fire and tell stories. Sounds about right -
Don’t go to Vegas.
Who would believe Obama had it right?
Stupid union-ized dolts who would’ve have been hired if they were too smart (no kidding) go charging and starting shoorting because “their training kicked-in” (or some such) with making sure of what was going on first. Makes me feel real safe to go to Vegas, let me tell. And, screw Costco for hiring some lying little 20-year-old weasel who “shaded” the truth to make cops come faster and spin ‘em up. Scott’s family should sue to pants off Costco and the city of Las Vegas.
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13194261/father-releases-list-of-drugs-erik-scott-was-taking?clienttype=printable
Scott’s father says he’s releasing the prescription list before Metro claims the drugs lead to Erik Scott acting impulsively with his concealed gun.
8 News NOW took the list to a local pharmacist who says the drugs could have lead to manic behavior. Taken individually, the prescribed drugs and nutritional supplements Erik Scott’s father says his son took are not considered harmful. But according to the Scott family, there’s 32 of them all mixed together.
Because of the lack of released video evidence from the Summerlin Costco, Metro and Erik Scott’s family may need to rely on medical evidence. Bill Scott says his son took some prescribed medications for a fractured back from his army service. Scott was prescribed drugs from Dr. Gnoyski at Summerlin’s Rehabilitation Associates. It was high dose of hydrocodone pain killer. There was the blood pressure medication and both human growth and bio identical hormones, antidepressants and testosterone. Bill Scott claims some of those drugs were prescribed by Dr. John Pierce at the Ageless Forever Clinic. The steroid prednisone was also reportedly prescribed to help with Scott’s back pain.
This mix is seen as a potentially dangerous combo capable of creating erratic behavior by pharmacy Dr. Kenton Crowley.
“Some people who get prednisone can actually get a manic-like effect or dysphoric almost causing a depression type of an effect,” said Dr. Crowley, Pathway Specialty Compounds.
Scott’s father says Erik took a wide range of 17 nutritional supplements as well. Many of them are available over the counter. There is also an extensive list of seven antioxidants provided by the Scott family. Dr. Crowley says they affect the liver’s ability to absorb the more potent drugs reportedly in Scott’s system.
“Definitely slow down elimination so that you’re getting much longer effect from that particular substance,” Dr. Crowley said.
A jury may have to decide if Scott’s prescriptions caused him to act threatening towards police officers as Metro claims. Metro says they will not comment on the evidence until it is revealed in the coroner’s inquest.
Dr. Crowley also notes Scott’s body chemistry could have been severely altered if he forgot to take one dose of any one of his several medicines for just one day. In his medical opinion, changing those prescription levels could have affected Scott’s behavior.
And the lack of video is simply coincidence? I’m not buying that.
So, is Erik Scott’s father part of the conspiracy?
http://www.lvrj.com/news/coroner-s-inquest-103734244.html
Christopher Villareale testified that he watched the entire confrontation unfold after being one of the last shoppers to leave the store. He said he heard an officer order Scott to get on the ground and saw Scott lift his shirt and pull a handgun from his waistband.
“I honestly thought that civilians were going to get shot,” Villareale said.
The officer probably saw Scott as a threat to himself and the dozens of people milling around the front doors, he said.
“He’s probably thinking this guy is going to harm me or these customers, and I thought he did the right thing in shooting him,” he said.
Villareale, who has a concealed weapons permit, said he had an incident with police about a year ago. He said he called police, and when officers arrived he put his gun down, laid face down on the ground and let himself be handcuffed.
After police investigated, they set him free and gave him his gun, he said.
If Scott had followed the officer’s orders at Costco, that day would have ended much differently, he said.
“I just can’t imagine grabbing a gun when you have a police officer pointing a gun and saying get on the ground. Why would you not comply?” Villareale said. “I think he made a very tragic error in grabbing it.”
Villareal put his gun down during his encounter with the cops? Well, that means he had the gun in his hand – and according to you and Villareal, when the cops see a person with a gun in his hand, the reasonable thing for the cops to do is open fire. I call BS.
Now you know why black people don’t trust cops. Now you know. Hey how about those heroic firefighters who let that guy’s house burn down because he didn’t pay a $75 annual fee? That’s the Tea Party America I yearn for.
(yawn)
The real question is, what is the special relationship between Metro and the Feds? There is no place in America with even a fraction of our police killings which has not received the FBI anal exam. This killing is not even exceptional around here. We can play Top This without reaching outside of Clark County.
Maybe it has to do with police looking the other way while federal agents do things in Las Vegas that the law might not want them to do?
@Wil “Mr. Owens,
Some relevant facts about this incident would be nice. For example:
1. What did his girlfriend witness, and what did she say happened?
2. Was the victim’s gun ever drawn or touched by him throughout this entire incident?
3. If he was making people uncomfortable enough to call the police, why didn’t he simply leave the store right away?
4. Was he asked to leave the store sooner than he actually did leave?
5. If he was not acting strangely or belligerently, why whould somebody say that in the first call to the police?”
Since I watched all six days of the inquest and am quite familiar with the details of this case, perhaps it would not be presumptuous of me to clear up some of the misunderstanding expressed here. Any criticism of my analysis would be welcomed.
1) His girlfriend did not testify. Her taped statement to the police, taken two hours after the shooting, was played for the jury. She stated that she thought the officer (Mosher) was “extremely aggressive”. She also stated that she was screaming at the officer (Mosher) that he (Erik) was “a military man” and he had “a concealed carry license” before he was shot.
2) The answer to that is in doubt. Witness testimony is all over the place (more on that later), and the evidence is also unclear. Either his holstered, uncocked 1911 was found on the ground, or the paramedics removed it from his belt when they were treating him at the scene. It depends on whose version you believe.
3) Erik was never asked to leave the store. There was no testimony that he made anyone uncomfortable except for Costco employees. Several customers who observed him at various points before he left the store regarded his behavior as “normal” or “unremarkable”.
4) He was never asked to leave the store. He was told that weapons were not allowed, but he was not asked to leave. Costco did not have any signs posted (and still does not to this day), nor do they have a written policy banning guns. All they have is a letter from a Costco lawyer claiming that they have a no weapons allowed policy, written in response to an unrelated query from a licensed citizen.
5) That’s a good question. Customer testimony of his behavior inside the store directly conflicts with the story told by Costco employees and given to the 911 operator. No customer testimony agreed with the Costco employee’s assessment of his behavior. That’s not to say there wasn’t any available, only that there was none at the inquest.
Regarding witness testimony, the following was sworn to at the inquest:
1) A man who paid for his own training and stated that he wanted to get a law enforcement job stated that he saw Erik going for his weapon and that he knew “what comes next”. He described Erik’s movements as turning to his right and assuming a shooter’s stance to reach for his weapon.
2) A man who claimed to have extensive experience with weapons stated that he saw Erik’s unholstered weapon in his hand, pointed at the officer. He stated that he recognized the weapon as a Sig (Sig Sauer) by the markings on the slide. He was to the right of Erik and had a clear view of Erik’s hand. I own two Sigs; a P226 and a P239. There are no markings on the right hand side of the slide or on the receiver. Erik’s weapon was a Kimber 1911 Ultra Carry. There is no similarity whatsoever between a 1911 and any Sig except the Sig 1911.
3) A man who stood directly to the left of Officer Mosher stated that he saw Erik remove his holstered weapon, all four fingers on the outside of the holster and point it to the left of the officer, as if he were offering it to him.
4) Several witnesses testified to seeing “a gun”, “something dark”, “what I thought was a gun” and similar statements.
5) Several other witnesses testified that they never saw Erik draw his gun and they saw no gun on the ground after he was shot.
6) One witness testified that he saw Erik “fumbling for something” like he was trying to remove it from his belt and having problems doing so.
Several academic articles reveal that witness testimony is inherently unreliable, influenced by their life experiences, their biases, their assumptions about what they saw and similar issues. (cf. http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm) This inquest was clear testimony to the accuracy of those studies.
With regard to whether or not Erik was impaired due to drug use, the testimony of Costco employees would have you believe that he clearly was. Yet the most damning evidence refuting that is the behavior of Erik himself.
Before he was confronted and shot by the officers, he passed by them a first time, to retrieve a shopping cart, turned around facing them and re-entered the store. Despite the fact that officers had a complete description of him (about 5’8″, red hair, green t-shirt, blue jeans and white shoes), SIX officers never recognized him as their suspect.
When he then exited the store the second time, passing within touching distance of Officer Mosher (some witness testimony states that Mosher touched him on the arm – Mosher denies it – but he was within six feet of Mosher when confronted and had walked directly past him) NONE of the six officers recognized him. His behavior was so unremarkable that he had to be pointed out to the officers by the same Costco employee who spoke to 911 and described his behavior as “erratic”, “loud”, “argumentative”, “excitable”, “possibly on drugs”, “possibly ‘ED’ [excited delirium]” and “escalating” (right before he calmly walked out of the store).
If there are other questions, I would be happy to attempt to answer them, as best I can.
As to my personal beliefs and biases, I am a strong supporter of law enforcement, a Navy veteran and I have a concealed handgun license. However, having watched the entire inquest and having studied the 911 tape carefully over 40 times, I believe this was a bad shoot. I further believe that Officer Mosher should be tried for manslaughter. (Whether he would be convicted or not is a matter for the jury.)
I believe that Officers Stark and Mendiola acted injudiciously and should be required to undergo further training but did not commit any offense worthy of criminal charges. Both testified that they shot because they heard Mosher shoot and they “believed” Mosher was in grave danger. I want my police officers to shoot only when they clearly see the threat of deadly force, especially if they are not the officer directly confronting a subject.
I believe LVMPD made several critical errors that led to the death of Erik Scott. 1) They did not personally observe Erik’s behavior to confirm the description given to them by the Costco Loss Prevention Officer, Shai Lierley. 2) They chose to confront Erik, with weapons drawn, when there had been no description of his being a threat to anyone, not even by Costco employees. 3) They endangered the lives of countless Costco employees and customers by confronting Erik in a crowd of over 75 people who were within 25 to 30 feet maximum (and some as close as two feet) of Erik at the time of the shooting. They may have even endangered each other, although their positions at the time of the shooting were not at all made clear during the inquest.
I believe that Erik made several mistakes but was not directly responsible for his own death. He failed to properly conceal his weapon. He chose to argue with Costco employees over their unwritten policy rather than excuse himself and leave the store. He made the fateful decision (testified to by his girlfriend in her statement to the police) that, if confronted by the police, he would surrender his weapon. He failed to recognize the seriousness of the situation when confronted by officers. At the first sight of a drawn weapon he should have instantly put his hands in the air and remained silent until the officers got control of themselves and handcuffed him.
None of Erik’s mistakes were worthy of the actions taken against him that day. Under similar circumstances, many officers around the country have never fired and ended the confrontation peacefully.
I thought that Officer Mosher had shot and killed another suspect several years ago. Do you know anything about that? Also, if in fact he has done this before shouldn’t he be charged with something more than manslaughter?
Yes, Officer Mosher has shot at another suspect several years ago. That suspect died, but I don’t know if Mosher’s shots hit him. You should not conflate the two cases, however. Each must stand or fall on its own merits.
The story of the previous shooting (2006) may be found here – http://www.masscops.com/f38/las-vegas-police-officers-ruled-justified-shooting-home-invasion-suspect-15453/ – from the description it appears justified, but I’m only superficially familiar with it, so I can’t make an informed judgment.
I did not conflate anything. The officer was cleared in this case also. That proves nothing. That case should, in light of this second killing, be looked at again and if this is a pattern he should be put away for good. Pun intended.
“He chose to argue with Costco employees over their unwritten policy”
Plural or one? Did that individual identify himself as an employee? Did Scott have any reason to believe that the person who confronted him was speaking for Costco? (You would not believe some of the stupidity I run into regarding local firearm laws, by people who have lived here all their lives. I would probably have blown off anyone not identifiable as a store employee as carrying then, there, and under those conditions, was not illegal unless someone who is identified as a representative of the store specifically requested I leave.)
The problem in answering your question is that the inquest wasn’t designed to determine those types of answers. From the testimony (all from Costco employees), an employee noticed his weapon and notified a supervisor who then informed him of the policy. He argued with the supervisor, who then got the store manager involved. The store manager then reiterated the policy with him. After the store manager spoke with him, they left him alone and observed him from a distance. At no time did any employee ask him to leave the store (according to their testimony).
There was no testimony regarding how they would have been identified as employees. I don’t shop at Costco, so I’m unfamiliar with the store. I have no idea if they were uniforms, have name badges or any other distinguishing features that would identify them as employees of the store.
Given that the inquest is not an adversarial proceeding and there was no cross examination of any of these witnesses, it’s difficult to say what really happened inside the store. Video would have been useful.
Outstanding rundown, brother.
My questions then to other law enforcement PJM folks would be regarding training. Being in the Navy and deployed forward, I received rudimentary training in “Shoot/No Shoot” scenarios, with the emphasis on *not* shooting until there was a clear threat. So, my questions would be
1) Do major metro PD’s routinely retrain for these scenarios?
2) Would it have mattered if Mr Scott withdrew his holstered weapon?
Thank you for a clear and concise comment on this thread. IMHO you’ve contributed significantly to the dialogue. Your conclusions seem reasonable. I’m not sure I agree with you about officers Stark and Mendiola. Between them they fired five unwarranted shots. It will take more than retraining to make silk purses out of those sows ears, IMO.
Here’s my reasoning regarding Stark and Mendiola. They are both rookies. They reacted improperly in a high stress situation. Which of us could guarantee we would react better under similar circumstances? They never would have fired if Mosher hadn’t fired. So I hold Mosher responsible for their actions, but I hold them responsible for not performing well under fire. I believe they can be trained and be productive officers. Mosher cannot. He is a rogue officer who is a danger to the public and to his fellow officers.
Were the inquest configured to arrive at verdicts for each individual officer, I would find Mosher’s actions criminal but Stark and Mendiola’s actions excusable. In a high stress high threat environment, you do not want police officers to hesitate to fire. You DO want them to properly identify the threat before firing.
Thanks for your input. It makes sense in some ways.
Do you have any comment re: the reported actions and location of the on scene supervisor of those officers at the moment the incident got “hot”?
I read somewhere that the supervisor was at a locked back door and was not in charge of the scene. There was no testimony regarding that at the inquest, so I really don’t know. Hopefully the civil trial will address that issue.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/coroner-s-inquest-103734244.html
Without Sterner on the witness stand, prosecutors played the recording of her statement to police after the shooting. The self-described model and television hostess said she had known Scott for three years, and that he was acting normally that day. His interaction with employees was amicable, she said, even though she wasn’t there to see it.
She said that as they walked toward the store’s exit, she told Scott he was probably the reason for the evacuation, and that he seemed surprised.
They reached the exit door and Sterner said she saw an employee point Scott out to a uniformed police officer outside.
“He (Officer William Mosher) immediately draws his weapon and tells him to get on the ground,” she said, adding that Scott put his hands up with the intention of disarming.
Sterner said she screamed at the officers that Scott was in the military and had a concealed weapons permit. She told them not to shoot, she said.
Scott raised his shirt to reveal the gun and had grabbed it to put it on the ground when the officer fired his pistol, she said.
Sterner said the officer “was too aggressive,” and she believed he would have fired even if Scott had complied with all directions.
“I just think that this officer was out of line,” she told police.
Scott was shot seven times by officers Mosher, Joshua Stark and Thomas Mendiola.
When a detective asked Sterner whether Scott took any medications, she said he was on a blood pressure drug and had also taken a pain pill the day before because of a car accident.
Scott’s postmortem blood test showed high levels of the painkiller morphine and the anti-anxiety drug Xanax.
So, per Samantha Sterner’s statement, when Erik Scott was confronted by a uniformed police officer with a drawn weapon who was giving him commands to get on the ground, Erik Scott’s response was to lift his shirt and draw his weapon.
No, his action was to remove his still holstered weapon and put it on the ground. The still holstered weapon was found on the ground next to him. Before you ask, “but he could have fired the weapon without taking it out of the holster”, there was no way that could have happened because of the nature of the Kimber 1911 that he was carrying, or the design and materials of the holster.
With all respect, even if it was impossible to fire this particular weapon from a holster, I’m not sure if *any* police officer could make that determination in the split second it would take to decide whether to shoot or not.
I am reminded of a case in Chicago a few years back where a young lady was shot by Chicago PD for removing a cell phone from her purse as the officer was telling her to keep her hands up. Obviously, the phone could not have hurt the officer, but he couldn’t distinguish it from a gun or other weapon quick enough to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Bottom line: Keep your hands up and well away from anyplace where someone *might* carry a weapon. I’m thinking now that even if an officer tells me to drop my weapon, I might answer “I don’t even want me hands near it right now!”.
Witnesses have stated that multiple contradictory commans were shouted at Scott by the three cops, including an instruction to drop his weapon. If Scott did what you claim, it is certainly possible that he was doing so to comply with that command.
Question ?? ,, Why is this NOT on the MSM Front Pages , and National News ?? WE need to CHANGE ,, a Few Things ,, In AMERICA !
The law suits should put at least a 1% hole in Coscose profits for theyear. Corporations respond only to rewards or to pain. If they do not ger gouged then their employee training will not change and contimue to perpatrate an unconstitutional policy to please thhe facsist in the Government.
Undougbtedly they ave been rewarded by promter police actions against shoplifters for having cameras which malfunction whenever police action occurs. Unfortunately there will always bepoice who do not want any recordsof their actions and they will always apply pressure to prevent any recod of their actions from being made. The state of Maryland and a few others haveactually past laws making it illegal to video tape the police. A Federal judge has rule against this type of law and the cases will be ping ponging up throught the court system for rhe next fewyears. But if f Americans want their constitutionalrights restored the law suits must hurt Cosco for tolerating conduct that does not conform to the constitution.
It’s an interesting hierarchy. When cops gun down a anonymous black teenager in LA, do you guys get this worked up and start second-guessing the police?
One very big take-home message from this story is … don’t wear a visible firearm. Seriously. If he hadn’t been carrying none of this would have happened. There are undoubtedly numerous kids who’d be alive today (or perhaps just walking free) if they hadn’t been carrying a weapon when approached by police responding to call for help. Sure it’s your right. Grit your teeth all you like. But handguns rattle people. Shopowners are not constitutionally required to ignore your weaponry, and they’re not duty-bound to leave that detail out when they call the police. People apparently jumped to conclusions – it seems to have been a big game of chinese whispers. But hey, guns ARE sometimes used to commit crimes you know.
I think the family definitely deserves civil compensation. But I think you need better evidence than this to prove that the police acted criminally. There does seem to be reasonable doubt. IMHO.
Well, a lot of people (including me) got worked up at the killing of Trevon Cole. His inquest preceded Erik’s by a few weeks. His killing was also ruled justifiable. Trevon Cole was a small time drug dealer. The police entered his apartment with a falsified warrant (written by the detective who killed him). Trevon ran to the bathroom to flush some marijuana down the toilet. Detective Yant broke down the bathroom door and shot Trevon in the head with is AR-15. Trevon was on unarmed, on his knees with his hands in the air when he was killed.
Trevon is black, but to me that’s not relevant. He was a drug dealer, but to me that’s not relevant either. What is relevant to me is that he was not a threat to police officers when he was shot, yet the officer was cleared of his killing anyway.
I agree with other commenters. Our police have become far too militarized and approach far too many situations with an unnecessarily aggressive stance. Furthermore, the venues for determining whether their actions were justifiable or not are far too slanted in their direction. Police officers should be given no more courtesy under the law than any other citizen who shoots someone.
I totally agree. Well said.
There are conflicting accounts and a plausible case can be made for either side of the argument.
The most important fact of the case though is that a plurality, perhaps a majority, of average American citizens no longer give the Police the benefit of the doubt.
Why is that? Most people remain reasonably decent, law-abiding citizens. But the relationship between the average citizen and the average cop has deteriorated. A combination of several things contributed to this, but the most important are these:
1. increasing use of uniformed police in revenue enhancement operations and nanny state enforcement. Every “click-it-or-ticket” stop turns one more citizen against the Police. And the profusion of billboards and radio spots advertizing these operations means even people who aren’t stopped have a negative reaction.
2. poor training of police officers – and by this I don’t mean inadequate training for confrontations such as this one, but rather misquided training that emphasizes officers adopt overbearing, overcontrolling, confrontational attitudes that provoke strong negative reactions from average citizens. The demeanor officers are taught to adopt in interactions is likely to escalate situations, and if it doesn’t is far more likely to leave the citizen with the impression the officer is a rude, bullying jerk that a competent, dedicated professional.
3. increasing militarization of the police. Every podunk agency has to have a SWAT team, and far too many agencies conduct high-stakes operation such as no-knock raids.
In short, Police are becoming viewed by the average citizen as a threat to life and property instead of a source of protection. This is not a good development, but the “professionals” guiding law enforcement don’t seem to care or understand.
JMH, you asked “Why is that?” re: not giving LE the benefit of the doubt.
I think the key factor in this case is the public is used to seeing police videos ad nauseum in almost all critical situations. Their absence, coupled with no available CCTV coverage by the business’s system, raises hackles and suspicions. Possibly rightfully so.
Bill,
I think it’s more than the absence of videos. In fact, if “the benefit of the doubt” still existed, the lack of vidoes wouldn’t be a concern because people would, well, give the police the benefit of the doubt.
I think it’s an increasing appearance that police departments have their own agenda, seperate from “to protect and serve.” We have so many laws, rules and regulations now, the average citizen is starting to feel over-constrained. “It’s a free country” is a joke these days, and Police Officers are becoming the symbol of this overbearing mass of rules and regulations. And the officers, or at least their leaders (both within the agencies and within the unions) seem perfectly okay with it.
It’s a major problem.
JMH, I hear you. But I think most of the public try to be fair forming opinions. It’s just that LVMPD has been featured on “COPS” video shows so many times and serves in such a hi-techie city with a gazillion lights that its hard to imagine they did not tape themselves. Comment #55 on this post gives a link to the private company that provides them video storage services. Why do they need this if they don’t have videos? Inquiring minds want to know.
Locally I teach neighborhood watch patrollers how to effectively call the cops. None of them are “afraid” of talking to the cops, but they are concerned with making fools of themselves while doing so. I think that is more like the general attitude nation-wide, but then that’s only my opinion.
The problem is the attitude of law-enforcement. They have been militarized. They have come to view the Citizens as the enemy. Everyone is suspect. They are not there to serve. They presume guilt, not innocence.
Let me pre-empt those who talk about the dangers police face: Tough! That is part of their job. They are supposed to assume greater risks, so that WE do not have to.
As long as the “suspect” (suspect of exactly what?) is not actively armed and is talking, then they should treat him as a Citizen. This notion that they must first dis-arm you and handcuff you, before they can interact with you is obscene!
You carry a weapon legally, and it is grounds for forcing you to the ground in submission, or even killed. “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is infringed when it is grounds for gross mistreatment by the police.
A Citizen with a gun is not a reason for police to draw down on him and escalate a situation out of control. The police are to blame for this. Their attitudes are the problem. They are trained to be dominant, to force you to submit. They are taught command voices, instead of calm voices.
If police were not so overly-aggressive, this would never have happened. All else is merest detail. The police made this happen with their attitudes. They provoke the violence, and use lethal force at whim.
Here’s how you know you are living in a police-State. the citizens fear the police. In a free society, police are your friends. In a State in between, the police are viewed with suspicion.
You decide for yourself how you view police. Scott made the mistake of seeing the police as his friend. He thought they were on the same side, playing for the same team. He is dead because of it. The police in this country are NOT your friend. Not anymore.
Another Nevada story.All this in a mostly unrestricted open carry state.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/do-we-think-twice-about-calling-police-83191892.html
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/handcuffed-disarmed-for-obeying-the-law-81088092.html
Per Erik Scott’s girlfriend’s statements, he lifted up his shirt and grasped his gun when confronted by police. THAT is what resulted in him getting shot. A clear fact the cop haters want to brush over, as that does not fit your agenda.
No more clear than the fact that he had less than three seconds to comply before he was shot. I don’t hate cops. I just want them to be honorable. And I want the bad ones off the force – and in jail if they committed crimes.
Hate them? No, but dislike the patterned behaviors which reflect arrogance and a desire to find trouble where it is not? Absolutely. I was stopped and cited a few months ago for performing a classic and traditional California Rolling Stop – something all native Californians learned to do, for better or worse. I was going about two miles per hour. First thing cop did when he approached the car was to say, ‘Haven’t we met before somewhere, Mr. _________?’ I told him I didn’t think so. They always try to intimidate, and if you are provoked by this kind of ‘question’ and are flippant, there is always the chance of a misdemeanor arrest for….nothing. Hate them? No. Respect them? Not anymore.
According to multiple witnesses, Scott was ordered to drop the weapon, which he could only do by lifting his shirt and grasping his gun. The fact that Scott was shot two seconds after the first of several contradictory commands was shouted, possibly while trying to comply with one of those commands, doesn’t bother you. I have no doubt that, if Scott had been shot after standing immobile because he didn’t know which command to obey, you would justify the shooting because he was “noncompliant” with the command to drop the weapon.
Clearly, that is what happens when undisiplined, poorly trained, careless, sloppy, incompetent and thoroughly unprofessional police officers (aka in cop parliance as “cowboys”) are given a free rein by their lazy, lax, sleazy, incompetent and [extremely] irresponsible superiors to play judge, jury and executioner, another consequence of which in such situations is that, invariably, covering their own asses will take precedence over protecting and properly serving members of their community.
We see that in the healthcare industry, too. Nobody is better at lying and covering up for each other than cops and nurses are. It has become a way of life in both professions. Pretty scary, considering that they hold the lives of other people in their hands. In fact, two different doctors told me that they suspected that more patients in hospitals die as a consequence of the carelessness, negligence, sloppiness and incompetence of nurses than as a consequence of those patients’ illnessess or injuries. Now THAT is scary!!! (But because they’re members of labor unions, it’s extremely hard to fire them, much less to even blame them for the consequence of their outrageous misbehavior, especially since they all lie and cover for each other.)
You evidently have issues in painting the nursing profession with such a large brush. I have been a nurse for 20+ years, and believe me, it is very easy to get a nurse fired, sued, or disciplined. You just need to know the channels.
My heart goes out to you for whatever pain you experienced because of something a nurse had done or failed to do.
Peace.
You just made my point.
BTW, Camo, I have had not just a few, but [several] very unpleasant experiences with hospital nurses, nursing home nurses, rehabilitation clinic nurses, doctors’ nurses and private duty nurses from agencies; perhaps much more intense and more horrifying situations than you have ever experienced in your 20+ years of nursing; e.g., especially in emergency rooms and in Intensive Care Units.
I’m not saying that ALL nurses are stupid, lazy, sloppy, careless, sleazy and incompetent. Fully a third of nurses are wonderful, very proficient professionals, and the performance of another third is acceptable. But I am saying that it has been my experience and the experience of many other people with whom I am acquainted professionally that the dirty little secret in the healthcare industry is that, in a variety of respects, [at least] a third of all nurses are unfit to provide care for anyone, just one aspect of which that aggravates me (and many others) is that, with ALL nurses, covering their asses ALWAYS takes precedence over providing proper care for their patients.
If you are a nurse, you already recognize that fact, even though, for whatever the reasons, you won’t admit it. In fact, lying to cover their asses, to conceal and to deflect attention away from their screw-up and the screw-ups of other nurses, and to protect the reputations of their employers has become a way of life for nurses and especially for their unethical supervisors, who are supervisors NOT because of their nursing or managerial skills in most cases, but because they are the type of people who are so depraved that they don’t have a twinge of conscience or guilt or shame or remorse about carrying out and enforcing the too frequently ill-conceived, unethical and sleazy directives of their employers, for whom covering their asses and profits ALWAYS take precedence over providing proper care for their patients, also.
Perhaps you are naive, or perhaps you choose to look the other way when others in your profession are engaging in outrageously inappropriate behavior, or perhaps you have been brainwashed to feel that you have an obligation to stick up for them. But if you have a conscience, you recognize subconsciously that what I have said here is the truth.
Peace to you, too. I hope that you can live with your conscience.
Pfew! I didn’t want to get into this.
Dianne,
Accusations against somebody you never met or don’t know shows the depth of pain and suffering that most people can only imagine. My heart goes out to you. While suspicion is a good thing, left unchecked it can deter opportunities. Again, peace be with you.
Whenever I have seen incompetence or moral corruption, it started a chain reaction for ending that person’s career (in both private and government facilities). My specialty is to certify nursing performance and competence, and I weed out and fire the type of people you so aptly described. It is far better to work short-staffed, than to work with lying incompetent people.
As for nursing homes go – I will never let my loved ones into one, for the some of the reasons you posted, as well as a few different ones.
It is never easy to hold the hand of a dying person, or sit with the loved ones who grieve for their losses. Perhaps because of my experience in working so closely with families, and patients of all sorts, I cannot tolerate dishonesty, nor do I work with those that do.
Given that only two seconds passed between the time the officers first spoke to Erik Scott (screamed at him, actually) and the first shot was fired at him, I seriously doubt he had time to:
(a) pull his shirt up;
(b) draw his weapon;
(c) bend down to put his weapon on the ground; and
(d) stand back up to be in the position forensic analysis showed him to be in when the police bullets traversed his body.
Witness accounts of where Erik Scott’s hands and weapon were at the time the police began shooting him have no credibility when contradicted by the trajectories of the bullets traversing his body.
The only witness accounts worth mentioning are those which are consistent with the forensic evidence.
IMO the Las Vegas police were terrified by the intentionally false statements of Costco personnel, panicked when they finally realized that the person the Costco personnel had reported was standing right next to them, and gunned Erik Scott down before he had time to obey any of their contradictory orders.
IMO Costco has serious exposure to punitive damages here.
I tend to think you are right about this but there was at least one female customer quoted at the inquest who said Mr. Scott had done something with a weapon, and afterward she saw a separate black object lying near his body on the ground. She was not cross-examined and I have no opinion as to her veracity, but even though I think LVMPD blew this whole thing big-time I can’t quite prove it to my own satisfaction yet. But I’m sure suspicious. Right now I have less than 5% confidence in the integrity of that agency.
Now if you want me to slam the county coroners office or the emergency communications (9-1-1) center, based on what we know right now I’m with you 100% right now. Neither agency appears to have enough integrity or professionalism to float a matchstick. Unbelievable, except that is is the city that Bugsy Siegel built.
Bill,
The Las Vegas police admitted that Erik Scott did not have his weapon in his hand when they spotted him. That is why they did not initially realize he was the person the Costco employees had called them about. The police also admitted that he did not have it in his hand when they first shouted commands at him.
So, unless Mr. Scott had drawn his weapon and put it on the floor BEFORE the police saw him, or started drawing it when they first realized who he was and yelled at him, it did not get on the floor because he put it there.
And the forensic analysis of the bullet trajectories in his body show that his hands were not in positions where he might have been drawing his gun or pointing it at the officers when he was first shot.
I therefore discount all purported eyewitness statements that he had drawn his weapons, or was drawing his weapon, before being shot, or had placed it on the floor himself.
The police shot him because they were terrified, surprised and then panicked. He had no chance to comply with their instructions or do anything but die.
Starting to sound like a good old fashion leftist hit piece to me…
So ears of tin then?
This is astonishing. In most parts of the world, it’s the LEFT who have it in for the cops. In the US, it seems to be “the right” (and yes, I know I’m ignoring my own arguments about these terms – but this thread doesn’t exactly strike me as “conservative”)
There is no ideal solution when the police have to deal with the odds of people being better-armed than they are, and potentially (a) stupid and (b) whacked on drugs. They don’t just have to keep themselves alive, they have to protect the other people in the vicinity as well. Sure, the police do the wrong thing at times. Absolutely. But I’d rather leave the outrage for situations where there really is no doubt. There are witnesses who suggest that this guy did precisely the wrong thing – he tried to “draw” a gun. When surrounded by shouting cops with firearms pointed at me, I personally would just put my hands up and follow instructions. I might get some gravel rash, but I’d be minimising the danger to myself and the people around me.
Certainly not everyone who thinks this was a bad shoot has it in for the cops. I know I don’t. But I also don’t want cops running around shooting citizens at the drop of a hat either. And how did they protect the people in the vicinity? There were perhaps 75 people milling around, some within touching distance of Erik, when the cops shot him. The odds of all seven shots hitting their target and not hitting any innocent bystanders were astronomical.
If you watched the inquest, as I did, you would know that witness testimony was not credible. Hell, if you read my lengthy response above you would know that. Stating that there were witnesses who suggest that Erik did “precisely the wrong thing” ignores the many witnesses who said he did nothing wrong. Witnesses are unreliable. Some believe they saw a gun simply because they cannot believe the police would shoot a man who didn’t have a gun in his hand. They reason, well, he must have had a gun in his hand. Why would the police tell him to drop it if he didn’t? So their memory of the event is colored by the knowledge they gained after it was over. Furthermore, the DA didn’t call many witnesses that disagreed with his version of the facts.
Paul,
["The odds of all seven shots hitting their target and not hitting any innocent bystanders were astronomical."] I take it you’d be equally upset when the surgeon comes out after a difficult operation and announces everything went fine? Why are you upset that no innocents were hurt?
["Witnesses are unreliable."] Indeed, Paul. So tell us why YOUR witnesses who said “he did nothing wrong”, should be less unreliable than the witnesses, like Villereale or Fee, who’s testimony YOU don’t like?
Your analogy holds only if the surgeon were performing emergency surgery in the middle of a crowd of people coming out of a Costco. Otherwise the situations are not the same. And in that case then, “Yeah”, it would have been sort of unusual.
You miss the point. PS is saying none of the witness testimony is verifiable at this point. It just is what it is. Witnesses at the inquest were carefully coached and controlled to only say what the officials wanted on the inquest record. It was a sham of a hearing, not a “trial”. The means of controlling testimony are built into our legal system because ultimately – in theory – a competent cross-examiner will dig into the testimony and expose it’s weak points and errors. So far that hasn’t occured, so I think PS is saying we need to wait for that to happen in order to confirm or allay our suspicions. And that includes his “own”, as you say.
I can’t believe you would ask such an insulting question. Why am I “upset that no innocents were hurt?” You cannot be serious! First, I never said nor implied such a thing. Second, the purpose of my comment was to emphasize the point that the police chose the worst possible circumstances to engage in a deadly force incident, surrounded by innocent people who could have been hit in the crossfire. That indicates extremely poor training or judgment (or both.)
Second, I said witnesses are unreliable. I did not say “my” witnesses (if such a thing were even possible) were more reliable. I did not even say “my” witnesses were reliable. I have no witnesses. Nor do I put more stock in some of the witnesses’ testimony than I do in others. I don’t know where you get such ideas. They must stem from your biases. They certainly don’t stem from mine.
Yeah, you dropped in here at the last moment and really pegged me. I’m a right-wing nutjob conservative that expects US cops to do their jobs professionally. Guilty as charged, your honor. Better lock me up. I must be dangerous because during my lifetime I’ve seen a few cops lie and cheat.
Or you might just be an opinionated jackass. I guess we’ll have to wait for the outcome of the civil trial to find out.
I like your style, Bill. Your grouchiness has a certain, well, a certain je na sais quoi.
You are trop sucré.
I really doubt that many West Point graduates will rally behind a drug crazed criminal.
Nor will many accept your naive [or is it deliberate?] mis-characterization of his state of mind. You illogically ignore his unremarkably walking past the same officers a few minutes earlier, retrieving a second cart, pushing the cart past them and re-entering the store. Then a bit later walking past two of them a second time accompanied by his GF as the group they were with calmly evacuated the store. Unless you are saying the three officers were too incompetent to notice a “drug crazed criminal”, your patently false description falls apart by virtue of the officers own testimony. But if it makes you sleep better at night, go ahead and believe it. Social fables can be comforting to children, they say.
I really doubt that many West Point graduates will pay heed to the comments of ignorant, biased people.
Now I’m really curious as to the links between the LVPD and the ‘Federales’ based on your derision towards a dead man, shot seven times, five in the back. Is there an entire stinking pile of Federal corruption in Las Vegas that the LVPD has helped with? Money laundering? Dope?
Fedarale,
Probably alot more than a mental midget like you could ever hope for.
“Federale” is almost guaranteed to be a “Law Enforcement” officer, or is sleeping with one. And given the moniker, it’s most likely a Fibbie. What ELSE would one expect from them? Bottom-feeders protect each other. Except when their Masters tell them otherwise. And after all, it’s only a dead white boy.
FYI,
The video security company Vegas Valley,the one Costco uses. Also provides all Metro’s security systems. No BS, this was posted on an Erik Scott website on Sept. 25 but the article is dated Oct.2, go figure.
http://www.prosecurityzone.com/Customisation/News/Surveillance/Recording_Media_DVR_Video_Servers_and_Data_Servers/Seahawk_Surveillance_Storage_System_Keeps_Watch_over_Las_Vegas_Police.asp
Clark County Officials should either change the name of the inquest to “The Law Enforcement Exoneration Show”, or if public officials are genuinely dedicated to the conducting of an effective fact finding procedure, one that is honest and impartial by design, then it is obvious that they must completely abandon the current format and employ the exact same procedures as used, for example, in a criminal trial. If the Inquest process is not overhauled, then at least from what I’ve seen and heard, there will be greatly diminished public trust between the law enforcement and citizenry of Clark County. This is a shame, because my experience has been that, where ever I’ve lived, the vast majority of law enforcement and public safety personnel are worthy of public trust and great respect. A few individuals exhibiting patterns of inappropriate or even criminal behaviors should not be allowed to ruin the safety and public trust of an entire city or county!
Is there any reason to doubt that there would be dirty cops in such a (literally and figuratively) vile city?
You need to understand this is NOT unique to Vegas. This is the NORM, not the exception. Don’t believe me? Take a look at:
http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/
Then recognize that’s a DAILY compendium of publicly available documented police malfeasance. Note that MANY jurisdictions REFUSE to publicize the crimes of their “Law Enforcement”. Whatcha got is only a SMALL sample of what they’re doing.
And THEN go to:
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?154483-quot-Ammo-quot-for-the-LE-hating-public
and see what “Law Enforcement” thinks about this. Note especially “Will Brink”, if you are fortunate enough to have him in your area, or if he has TRAINED any SWAT in your area. Do you understand yet? Be sure to thank them appropriately for the OUTSTANDING job they have done!
And still more of “Law Enforcement” at their finest:
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?154305-LASD-Rookie-Shoots-at-Store-Clerk-After-Robbery
What do YOU think the charges would have been for a NON-LEO who did this? Inquiring minds want to know…
And yet more:
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?154531-Student-Discovers-Tracking-Device-Under-His-Car
“…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution…”
Yeah, right!
I don’t know how much exposure this recieved outside of Vegas, but after watching every second of the live inquest as well as all the local articles that have came to light I wanted to give my best rundown on this. Erik was never told to leave as testified to by Costco employees themselves. One of the rookie shooter cops also stated in his testimony that you would not know to leave the store unless specifically told to. Erik was calmly walking out of the store with his girlfriend and was only noticed after he was pointed out by the same person who called 911 and was done so in a very excited manner as testified to by the old woman in a wheelchair who was leaving the store also. The bald officer yelled 3 different commands, one of which was to “drop it”. At the time he started yelling these commands Erik had already walked past him. From the time the first order was yelled until the first shots wrang out was about 3 seconds and you can pull the 911 tapes off youtube if you want to judge for yourself. This guy had 3 seconds to turn around, realize that this whole evacuation was for him, then try to pick which one of the 3 commands to obey. That’s hard enough to decide without adding the adrenaline/fear of having an aggressive cop pointing a gun at you. The testimony on what he actually did was all over the place, but to sum it up… You had costco employees, law enforcement hopefuls, and extremely elderly people who just did not seem like they would comprehend a quick exhange. I don’t mean that in a derogatory manner, I am just saying it was like seeing your grandma who cant tell you apart from your siblings. Most of these witnesses claimed either he looked a deer in headlights or that he lifted his shirt and made a motion towards his ride side or back hip. The ones who claimed to have seen an object in his hands..also claim that after the first two shots rang out from the bald officer that whatever was in his hand fell to the ground and slid. The only witnesses that stated he still had something in his hands when the two rookie cops shot the 5 shots in his back, were the two rookie cops themselves. Some witnesses said it was a square object, some said he pulled the actual gun out free of a holster, some said it could have been a phone. The gun itself never left its holster and that is not disputed and the photo was shown of the gun still holstered with trigger completely covered. There were several witnesses who were shoppers that day who were physicians who testified that Erik had nothing in his hands clear as day and that the cop shot immediatly giving no time to react. Also it was testified by many that was spun to the right then fell to his knees after the first two shots, then fell on his face and several witnesses stated the remaining burst of shots came while falling or on his knees. One of the bullets did enter his buttocks and lodge in his torso area testified to by one of the first physicians. Every time a witness who did not go along with the he pulled a gun so they shot defense, the D.A. became very hostile. One witness was a shopper at a store who works as a public defender was told he biased by the D.A. as well as another shopper for having been on probation etc. For supposedly being a fair fact finding proceeding it was completely obvious that the D.A. was hostile anytime the witnesses did not go along with how the baited the questions. That includes the Doctors who treated Erik as they spent a day and half just trying to paint him as a drug addict, though the Doctor who was treating him at the time of the shooting testified that they were finally getting his pain under control and that he had built up a tolerance as a result of having a long term back injury from jumping out of helicopter. Many of the Doctors they brought up even testified that he could very well function just fine on the medications and doses he was on. There are too many things off in this case. The cameras mysteriously don’t work in the area where the shooting takes only for like a 3 day period yet work just fine a couple hours after the shooting. The girlfriend herself witnessed them take away Eriks body in the ambulance from a back room inside costco on the surveilance monitor as they were detaining her for her statement. Odd how the tape of the area just beyond where the shooting took place worked totally fine and showed the time of the shooting and the people scrambling. The same person who called 911, and pointed out Erik to police, says he is the one who had called in the broken video equipment a few days prior. He said he first tried to reboot it that didnt work so he called the vendor. about 3 to 4 hours after the shooting the vendor comes out, does the same simple reboot and what do you know the video works from that point on? Come on now people are not dim. Alot of people testified they never saw a gun in his hands or ever saw any gun on the ground. His own girlfriend who was right next to him said he never even got the holster out of his waistband and that when his body fell to the ground it was still on him. Not one single person mentioned his blackberry on the ground and how it got there. In every picture that showed his gun in its holster, his blackberry is very closeby. Not one person ever said he had something in both hands ever. The last thing I want to bring up is the second gun they supposedly found on the way to the hospital in his pocket. It was said that for whatever reason once the officers had shot him, no one even went to check his pulse for any sign of life. It was testified the bald officer put a knee on his back and cuffed him, then left him and the Doctors who witnessed the incident said they couldn’t beleive what they were seeing and that they themselves were too afraid of the officers to offer medical help. Once he was in the abulance on the way to the hospital, in which he was riding with a metro officer, supposedly they found a 380 in his pants pocket. This man did have a CCW and he did have several guns listed as being registered as is required in Nevada. Of the guns listed that he was allowed to carry concealed was a different 380 than the one supposedly found in his pocket. One was a ruger and one was a keltec. The D.A. hounded this point even though even the detective presenting it said how similiar they are. I bring this up because just in the last week or so it has surfaced that 2 or 3 hours after Erik was shot, the public administrators office spoke with Eriks brother to try ang get permission to enter his apartment without a family member there. The girlfriend who lived with Erik told them they could not enter at the advice of the families attorney. Eriks brother told him he was flying out there the next day and never gave permission. He told him he was boarding a flight and would not be able to speak for a few hours. The public administrator then left a voicemail stating that he was going to break in to the residence anyways and that he already had a locksmith on the way and that he didn’t need a family member present anyways, but that it would be ok because he had a metro cop accompanying him. Are you kidding me? They changed the locks and this mans girlfriend couldnt even get into her own house that night because the same police that just shot her boyfriend 7 times in front of her broke into her house and rummagged through items, 2 of which are missing according to the familys own website. Im not gonna say it nor should I have to, but put the pieces together yourselves.
Unfortunately, Mr. Scott was not a Preferred Species, so there will be nothing done to the murderers. May they and their enablers rot for what they’ve done.
I relish, lead to I found exactly what I was taking a look for. You’ve ended my four day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye
Thanks for the good writeup. It if truth be told was once a entertainment account it. Look complicated to more introduced agreeable from you! However, how could we communicate?