Erik Scott

KBCraig said:

I agree, but again: the characterization of Scott "arguing" came from those with jobs and money at stake in the outcome of the investigation and inquest.

Arguing, versus discussing, versus asking for clarification, are all matters of degree and perception. When only one party is alive to recount the conversation, and it happens to be someone whose ass is on the line, the details and perception just might change a bit, don't you think?

Click to expand...

And all of the disputing facts came from who? People who also had an agenda - like clearing the name of a loved one.

None of us were there, at least that I am aware of.

Not justifying the cops unjustifiable killing, but I have seen a lot of sketchy 'facts' argued either way in this case and really there is a lot we will never know for sure.

jdholmes said:

And all of the disputing facts came from who? People who also had an agenda - like clearing the name of a loved one.

Click to expand...

The only witnesses called at the inquest were those who had some connection to Costco or law enforcement. Other witnesses have made public statements that the testimony was false.

Even more telling, within minutes of the first notice here of the shooting, one of the posters here predicted that Costco's cameras were going to have "technical difficulties." And that's the official story -- a multibillion-dollar company, which spends millions of dollars on security equipment, claimed that their surveillance system wasn't working.

I think that was the biggest crock of the whole case...ridiculous.

It's not a being paranoid if it's true.

We got a little off track here. While it is good advice to not argue the point when asked or told to leave by a store manager, whether or not Erik Scott did so is a red herring.

He wasn't shot because he refused to leave. He was shot because police panicked and used poor tactics.

KBCraig said:

He was shot because police panicked and used poor tactics.

Click to expand...

Nope, they used good tactics ... for an ambush.

Yard Sale said:

Nope, they used good tactics ... for an ambush.

Click to expand...

Point!

another observation from the article...

As the officer began yelling and Scott realized he was the subject of the commands, he turned, lifting his hands, and apparently tried to follow the legal requirement to immediately inform an officer that he was an armed weapons permit holder, but he didn’t have time.

Click to expand...

Does anyone else see something wrong with that sentence? I wholeheartedly believe that Scott was murdered, but we don't need people like this "journalist" spreading misinformation. It is not helping the 2a cause. And it really makes me doubt the validity of the rest of the article.

I caught that as well.

You have no legal responsibility to inform an officer unless he asks. I guess at that point, you could argue it either way, so I gave Vin the benefit of the doubt, considering his track record.

I find it ironic that the Police would not have had authority to arrest Scott had he stole something, (the store manager swears out the arrest complaint) but they had the RAS to order him 5 WAYS TO SUNDAY AT GUNPOINT! over hearsay,

I know that it can be construed that a crime had just occured imminently, But what METRO did was take the call takers version at face value. they dispatched a mobile crisis unit before one officer had even arrived.
Metro's Use of force policy was discarded in the name of officer safety, after they escalated a situation which left alone would have most likely resulted in peace.

According to SCOTUS officers are mundane untill authorized by law. there must be articulable facts and circumstances to authorize action. I told Mr. Scott when I talked to him that I felt his lawyers were "paid" probably politically to give him the we cannot get past the immunity stuff. lok for Goodman and crew to be reaping the rewards someday. (that is my conspiracy theory)