• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Officer invol. shooting

AmbushBug

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
62
Location
Las Vegas, NV
* There were discrepancies in the testimony (as there are in eyewitness testimony), however the vast majority of the witnesses reported some version of Scott pulling his gun and pointing it at the officer. The clear conclusion of the testimony was that Scott foolishly tried to disarm himself (against any version of the instructions you choose to believe he was given) and gave the appearance of pointing his gun at the officer.
.

What was on the audio tape, "drop it, get on the ground get on the ground" is not a discrepancy of testimony, and if one "chooses to believe" nobody yelled "drop it" at him, it doesn't change the reality.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Which is not useful. Make some quote tags to separate them so I can cite your text.


But, I separated one specific out for you to support with legal citation:

"It is an obvious request to take the gun out, to leave--at least for anyone not whacked out on drugs."

No, it is not. Having a store personnel make a simple statement such as that has NO legal standing. If you seriously believe it does, then cite the relevant statute. Even a SIGN stating "no guns allowed" has NO legal standing. If you seriously believe it does, then cite the relevant statute.

Meh. It was effective for me to refute what you posted. If you want to split it out for you to be easily able to refute point-by-point, feel free to put the tags in yourself.

I never said it would have legal standing. That is a standard that you are applying. I won't speak for how it works in Nevada, but it could be similar to how it works in Alabama. After the security indicates that you are not welcome with your gun, they may not force you to leave. They will call the police. (Gee, that's what happened here.) The police will ask you to leave. If you don't, they then have evidence of trespass and will arrest you. That is not to say that you were not trespassing BEFORE the police arrived, they just will not bother to do anything about it if you leave.

Now, when the police arrive, they will be leary of the MWAG who would not leave. They will be on high alert if they were advised that he was acting erratically. Not following their instructions, reaching for the place where you've been told the gun was, pulling something out, and pointing it at the officers will, expectedly, get you shot.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
What was on the audio tape, "drop it, get on the ground get on the ground" is not a discrepancy of testimony, and if one "chooses to believe" nobody yelled "drop it" at him, it doesn't change the reality.

Why do you make it sound as if that is the discrepancy of which I spoke? Please reread what I have written.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Again, do you have any evidence of this? Or, is it a convenient belief that supports a previously held viewpoint? I deliberately waited until reading about the testimony to pass judgment and avoided jumping on the bandwagon, even though every instinct I had told me that the officers overreacted. After reading about the testimony, I am convinced that the officer was reasonably in fear of his life and shot to end the threat.

That is why I am encouraging folks to read the testimony. Many did not form an opinion. The testimony should be a part of the basis of any opinion they form.

My evidence is explicit: this is standard procedure. You don't offer evidence against your position. The DA handpicked who would testify to ensure the outcome favorable to his side. If the preponderance of the evidence, as you suggest, favors your conclusion the caveat remains that the evidence was not presented even handedly. There are many posts on this thread that substantiate witnesses who had the opposite interpretation were not allowed to testify. The cops parsed it and then the DA did it again. In a court of law, this would not have been allowed--the other side would have sought discovery and made sure they had their side represented fully. This was not allowed. The system took care of their own, not surprisingly. DAs like to have nice relations with the cops and trampling fairness and equity to do it is sop. Going after a cop is something they don't have the cajones to do except when corruption is so rampant that other state or Federal agencies have been forced to get involved. Then suddenly they become "crusaders."
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
My evidence is explicit: this is standard procedure. You don't offer evidence against your position. The DA handpicked who would testify to ensure the outcome favorable to his side. If the preponderance of the evidence, as you suggest, favors your conclusion the caveat remains that the evidence was not presented even handedly. There are many posts on this thread that substantiate witnesses who had the opposite interpretation were not allowed to testify. The cops parsed it and then the DA did it again. In a court of law, this would not have been allowed--the other side would have sought discovery and made sure they had their side represented fully. This was not allowed. The system took care of their own, not surprisingly. DAs like to have nice relations with the cops and trampling fairness and equity to do it is sop. Going after a cop is something they don't have the cajones to do except when corruption is so rampant that other state or Federal agencies have been forced to get involved. Then suddenly they become "crusaders."

Okay, show me the standard operating procedure that police and the DA deliberately suppress testimony. Saying it is standard operating procedure does not make it so.

Also, you mention that many witnesses who had the opposite interpretation. Name them. Point to their differing interpretations. I have repeatedly asked for such specificity and none has been forthcoming.

I am getting a lot of predisposition here and zero substance.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Okay, show me the standard operating procedure that police and the DA deliberately suppress testimony. Saying it is standard operating procedure does not make it so.

Also, you mention that many witnesses who had the opposite interpretation. Name them. Point to their differing interpretations. I have repeatedly asked for such specificity and none has been forthcoming.

I am getting a lot of predisposition here and zero substance.

Other posters have referenced witnesses contrary to your "preponderant current of statement," so I won't go there. My quote " There are many posts on this thread that substantiate witnesses who had the opposite interpretation were not allowed to testify."

As to your second point, I am better versed in legal procedures than probably 98% of this forum. Although I generally am concerned with FAR type stuff in my job, I make a point to keep up to date with other type proceedings. I have worked very closely with prosecuters recently--and have in the past, as well, in both state and Federal courts for various reasons. (No, I wasn't on trial.) ANY DA or US Attorney will only present evidence favorable to HIS side. He will do whatever he can to exclude exculpatory evidence--in line with the rules of evidence. Just as any defense attorney will do everything he can, op cit motion in limine, to exclude evidence painting his client in a bad light--to say nothing of proving his guilt. This is beyond the need to show proof as a standard operating proceedure. It is a 'canon' of the law. Accepting it as such is simple common sense. I never said the DA or cops surpressed evidence, I said they parsed it to make it show their side in the most favorable light. They violated no law in doing this. It was NOT a trial, it was an inquest with completely different procedural and evidentiary regulations. In a court of law, as I have said repeatedly, this would not stand. The other side would have redress against unlawful surpression and the DA as an officer of the court would be compelled to present exculpatory evidence. But but but....in a court of law the COPS would be the defendents!!! And rightly so, imo. The DA would advocate for the people against them. The DA was free to charge the cops immediately with manslaughter. He chose to do nothing and let a Coroners Inquest take over, failing his obligation to a dead man and his family. That is the problem, screw the testimony and who said what. The DA went for the whitewash and it worked. If it had been a civilian who shot an "erratic cop" who maybe pointed a gun and maybe didn't, do you really think the DA would have left it up to a CI? No ******* way. That is the salient point you keep missing.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Other posters have referenced witnesses contrary to your "preponderant current of statement," so I won't go there. My quote " There are many posts on this thread that substantiate witnesses who had the opposite interpretation were not allowed to testify."

As to your second point, I am better versed in legal procedures than probably 98% of this forum. Although I generally am concerned with FAR type stuff in my job, I make a point to keep up to date with other type proceedings. I have worked very closely with prosecuters recently--and have in the past, as well, in both state and Federal courts for various reasons. (No, I wasn't on trial.) ANY DA or US Attorney will only present evidence favorable to HIS side. He will do whatever he can to exclude exculpatory evidence--in line with the rules of evidence. Just as any defense attorney will do everything he can, op cit motion in limine, to exclude evidence painting his client in a bad light--to say nothing of proving his guilt. This is beyond the need to show proof as a standard operating proceedure. It is a 'canon' of the law. Accepting it as such is simple common sense. I never said the DA or cops surpressed evidence, I said they parsed it to make it show their side in the most favorable light. They violated no law in doing this. It was NOT a trial, it was an inquest with completely different procedural and evidentiary regulations. In a court of law, as I have said repeatedly, this would not stand. The other side would have redress against unlawful surpression and the DA as an officer of the court would be compelled to present exculpatory evidence. But but but....in a court of law the COPS would be the defendents!!! And rightly so, imo. The DA would advocate for the people against them. The DA was free to charge the cops immediately with manslaughter. He chose to do nothing and let a Coroners Inquest take over, failing his obligation to a dead man and his family. That is the problem, screw the testimony and who said what. The DA went for the whitewash and it worked. If it had been a civilian who shot an "erratic cop" who maybe pointed a gun and maybe didn't, do you really think the DA would have left it up to a CI? No ******* way. That is the salient point you keep missing.

So, you won't provide the specific support that your assertions require? You won't cite the witnesses who have relevant information and were denied the opportunity to testify and you cannot cite the standard operating procedure that police and DAs follow to suppress testimony.

Moving on until you chose to support your assertions with something more than assertions.
 

DVC

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,185
Location
City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
* The impairment was obvious from the erratic behavior reported in the testimony.

Many years ago, I told my uncle that his dog's flea collar wasn't working, because the dog was scratching. Uncle Rick look at me and asked if I only scratch when I have fleas. Your comment makes me wonder if you only seem "erratic" to others when you are doped up . . ?

* There were discrepancies in the testimony (as there are in eyewitness testimony), however the vast majority of the witnesses reported some version of Scott pulling his gun and pointing it at the officer.

The vast majority of testimony was given by people who either work for Costco -- thus their jobs might be at risk -- or were connected to the law enforcement community. That kid who had applications in to various PDs in the area would never get hired if he said anything detrimental about Jabba the Cop.

Most of the people who testified wouldn't have been allowed on the jury, because they are "tainted." If they wouldn't be allowed on the jury, then their testimony must not be taken at face value.

The clear conclusion of the testimony was that Scott foolishly tried to disarm himself (against any version of the instructions you choose to believe he was given) and gave the appearance of pointing his gun at the officer.

You are half right. There were witnesses who clearly stated that the pistol was in the holster, and the holster turned sideways.

* Submitting a list of questions guarantees that no question goes unasked.

Not true. The presiding officer is not required to ask any question at all, and may decide which to ask and how far to pursue the question. Personally, I have a big problem with judges being put in the position of either prosecution or defense. A judge should only ask for clarification of a point being made at the time. Everything else should be asked by prosecutor and defense.

The problem is that the "prosecutor" in this case has spent his career working alongside these cops. This is like asking Nancy Pelosi to prosecute Harry Reid.

* What other interpretation of, "You can't have a gun here," is there? It means one of two things only: "If you have the gun, be elsewhere," or, "If you are here lose the gun."

Nope, sorry. Unless there is a clear and identifiable command, there is no command at all. Otherwise, it is advisory, and can mean "I'll let it go this time, but don't do it again."

For instance, if I blow the whistle and point at you, shouting "No peeing in the pool," I'm not telling you to get a bucket and take your urine elsewhere, am I? An extreme example, but it seems you need them or don't see the point.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
..........Post Deleted - Rules Violation.......

Really? My mouse was hovering over the reply button on your previous post. I was about to give you a thoughtful reply to that post until I spotted this.

Never mind. I will take the time to discuss with folks who are interested in a rational discussion.
 

DVC

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,185
Location
City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
Okay, show me the standard operating procedure that police and the DA deliberately suppress testimony. Saying it is standard operating procedure does not make it so.

Also, you mention that many witnesses who had the opposite interpretation. Name them. Point to their differing interpretations. I have repeatedly asked for such specificity and none has been forthcoming.

I am getting a lot of predisposition here and zero substance.

You are OFFERING zero substance, and dodging issues, because of your apparent predisposition.

The cops SENT HOME witnesses rather than taking their statements or having them wait for investigators. Show me how this is standard operating procedure. For ANY kind of incident, much less when the cops had just killed someone.

For that matter, what is the difference between that and some Mafia hit man telling someone to leave after he kills someone?

From there, we have the DA selecting certain witnesses and not others. The ones who got picked included most Costco employees -- who had had a couple of months to get their story straight, and remember that their company "lost" the video, while considering those implications and the current job market -- and a couple of people who are part of the law enforcement community. Of the few others, the DA himself tried to trash the credibility of two of them, after they had answered his questions in a way which displeased him.
 

DVC

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,185
Location
City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
Really? My mouse was hovering over the reply button on your previous post. I was about to give you a thoughtful reply to that post until I spotted this.

Never mind. I will take the time to discuss with folks who are interested in a rational discussion.

Too bad you're not one of them. From the beginning you have been ducking and weaving, while making some of the most absurd statements that I've seen here.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Meh. It was effective for me to refute what you posted. If you want to split it out for you to be easily able to refute point-by-point, feel free to put the tags in yourself.
I have done that, as I am doing it now. You have not done that with mine. That looks like erratic behavior on your part.
eye95 said:
I never said it would have legal standing. That is a standard that you are applying. I won't speak for how it works in Nevada, but it could be similar to how it works in Alabama. After the security indicates that you are not welcome with your gun, they may not force you to leave. They will call the police. (Gee, that's what happened here.) The police will ask you to leave. If you don't, they then have evidence of trespass and will arrest you. That is not to say that you were not trespassing BEFORE the police arrived, they just will not bother to do anything about it if you leave.
If it has no legal standing, it is not relevant. And guess what? This shooting took place in Nevada, not in Alabama. If you really want to discuss it and not simply be an LE apologist, find out how it works IN NEVADA before discussing what happened IN NEVADA.
The ONLY legal standing begins with "trespass." In Nevada, a mere sign indicating "no firearms allowed" might as well not be posted. An employee telling you that "we don't allow guns in here" might as well keep his opinion to himself. It isn't grounds for shooting by LE!

eye95 said:
Now, when the police arrive, they will be leary of the MWAG who would not leave. They will be on high alert if they were advised that he was acting erratically. Not following their instructions, reaching for the place where you've been told the gun was, pulling something out, and pointing it at the officers will, expectedly, get you shot.
In Nevada, unless an agent of the property owner 'trespasses' a person, there is no "MWAG who would not leave." If you cannot (or will not) understand this, you are discussing something of which you are completely ignorant.

Being in CostCo with a firearm was not a crime. Remaining in CostCo after an employee supposedly informed him that "we do not allow firearms in here" was not a crime. The person who called 911 failed. Dispatch failed. CostCo failed. Responding LE failed. Citizen died. You showed up as an LE apologist.
 
Last edited:

nomidlname

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
100
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
I have done that, as I am doing it now. You have not done that with mine. That looks like erratic behavior on your part.
If it has no legal standing, it is not relevant. And guess what? This shooting took place in Nevada, not in Alabama. If you really want to discuss it and not simply be an LE apologist, find out how it works IN NEVADA before discussing what happened IN NEVADA.
The ONLY legal standing begins with "trespass." In Nevada, a mere sign indicating "no firearms allowed" might as well not be posted. An employee telling you that "we don't allow guns in here" might as well keep his opinion to himself. It isn't grounds for shooting by LE!


In Nevada, unless an agent of the property owner 'trespasses' a person, there is no "MWAG who would not leave." If you cannot (or will not) understand this, you are discussing something of which you are completely ignorant.

Being in CostCo with a firearm was not a crime. Remaining in CostCo after an employee supposedly informed him that "we do not allow firearms in here" was not a crime. The person who called 911 failed. Dispatch failed. CostCo failed. Responding LE failed. Citizen died. You showed up as an LE apologist.

^^ Well said.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I have done that, as I am doing it now. You have not done that with mine. That looks like erratic behavior on your part...

That is as far as I read. If you wish to discuss this rationally, without resorting to juvenile attacks, let's.

Otherwise, I'll just move on. The choice is yours.
 

nomidlname

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
100
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
Judge denies Costco request to ban protesters

http://www.lvrj.com/news/judge-denies-costco-request-to-ban-protesters-104099494.html

Text of the article has been removed to insure opencarry.org doesn't get sued. Please read the attached article. You will be amazed. It appears Costco is trying to get an ex parte restraining order against unknown people. That way they can call metro again and have people removed that don't know anything about the restraining order. Seems like they want more people to get into confrontations with the police and possibly get killed.
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
So, you won't provide the specific support that your assertions require? You won't cite the witnesses who have relevant information and were denied the opportunity to testify and you cannot cite the standard operating procedure that police and DAs follow to suppress testimony.

Moving on until you chose to support your assertions with something more than assertions.

My assertions are based on my personal and professional experience as well as education. If you want names of the witnesses who didn't get to tell their side, you'll have to contact the DA. Maybe he'll fax you a copy of the lists with their names crossed off. DVC makes a strong case in this regard, it seems to me.
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Many years ago, I told my uncle that his dog's flea collar wasn't working, because the dog was scratching. Uncle Rick look at me and asked if I only scratch when I have fleas. Your comment makes me wonder if you only seem "erratic" to others when you are doped up . . ?



The vast majority of testimony was given by people who either work for Costco -- thus their jobs might be at risk -- or were connected to the law enforcement community. That kid who had applications in to various PDs in the area would never get hired if he said anything detrimental about Jabba the Cop.

Most of the people who testified wouldn't have been allowed on the jury, because they are "tainted." If they wouldn't be allowed on the jury, then their testimony must not be taken at face value.



You are half right. There were witnesses who clearly stated that the pistol was in the holster, and the holster turned sideways.



Not true. The presiding officer is not required to ask any question at all, and may decide which to ask and how far to pursue the question. Personally, I have a big problem with judges being put in the position of either prosecution or defense. A judge should only ask for clarification of a point being made at the time. Everything else should be asked by prosecutor and defense.

The problem is that the "prosecutor" in this case has spent his career working alongside these cops. This is like asking Nancy Pelosi to prosecute Harry Reid.



Nope, sorry. Unless there is a clear and identifiable command, there is no command at all. Otherwise, it is advisory, and can mean "I'll let it go this time, but don't do it again."

For instance, if I blow the whistle and point at you, shouting "No peeing in the pool," I'm not telling you to get a bucket and take your urine elsewhere, am I? An extreme example, but it seems you need them or don't see the point.

Good rebuttal.
 

nomidlname

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
100
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
That is as far as I read. If you wish to discuss this rationally, without resorting to juvenile attacks, let's.

Otherwise, I'll just move on. The choice is yours.

Seriously? That's your answer? You can't address his valid points and hide behind his first statement? Weak.

My choice is you move on since you keep deflecting or ignoring valid answers. Your Pro-cop position is noted and understood. We all understand that your opinion is Law Enforcement did not make a mistake and that the process to investigate the shooting was perfect and not biased in any way.

Since your not willing to keep with the rules of law in Nevada or cite any rulings that prove your opinions there is not really much else to say.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Seriously? That's your answer? You can't address his valid points and hide behind his first statement? Weak.

My choice is you move on since you keep deflecting or ignoring valid answers. Your Pro-cop position is noted and understood. We all understand that your opinion is Law Enforcement did not make a mistake and that the process to investigate the shooting was perfect and not biased in any way.

Since your not willing to keep with the rules of law in Nevada or cite any rulings that prove your opinions there is not really much else to say.

If he chooses to post again without the insults, I'll respond. I've learned over the years that there is no value in posting to people who disagree by insulting the person they disagree with.

Like I said, if he posts again without the insult, I'll be happy to respond.
 

nomidlname

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
100
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
If he chooses to post again without the insults, I'll respond. I've learned over the years that there is no value in posting to people who disagree by insulting the person they disagree with.

Like I said, if he posts again without the insult, I'll be happy to respond.

oh, ok. Then here ya go...

Originally Posted by eye95
I never said it would have legal standing. That is a standard that you are applying. I won't speak for how it works in Nevada, but it could be similar to how it works in Alabama. After the security indicates that you are not welcome with your gun, they may not force you to leave. They will call the police. (Gee, that's what happened here.) The police will ask you to leave. If you don't, they then have evidence of trespass and will arrest you. That is not to say that you were not trespassing BEFORE the police arrived, they just will not bother to do anything about it if you leave.

Originally Posted by wrightme
If it has no legal standing, it is not relevant. And guess what? This shooting took place in Nevada, not in Alabama. If you really want to discuss it and not simply be an LE apologist, find out how it works IN NEVADA before discussing what happened IN NEVADA.

Originally Posted by wrightme
The ONLY legal standing begins with "trespass." In Nevada, a mere sign indicating "no firearms allowed" might as well not be posted. An employee telling you that "we don't allow guns in here" might as well keep his opinion to himself. It isn't grounds for shooting by LE!

Originally Posted by eye95
Now, when the police arrive, they will be leary of the MWAG who would not leave. They will be on high alert if they were advised that he was acting erratically. Not following their instructions, reaching for the place where you've been told the gun was, pulling something out, and pointing it at the officers will, expectedly, get you shot.

Originally Posted by wrightme
In Nevada, unless an agent of the property owner 'trespasses' a person, there is no "MWAG who would not leave." If you cannot (or will not) understand this, you are discussing something of which you are completely ignorant.

Originally Posted by wrightme
Being in CostCo with a firearm was not a crime. Remaining in CostCo after an employee supposedly informed him that "we do not allow firearms in here" was not a crime. The person who called 911 failed. Dispatch failed. CostCo failed. Responding LE failed. Citizen died. You showed up as an LE apologist.
 
Last edited:
Top