Inquest in Costco shooting to be televised

Nevada carrier said:

The DA thanks you for taking his bait. that "lethal dose" was was relevant to people who have not taken or developed a tolerance to it. They said that several times. Again, all of this is beside the point. Remember, this inquest as stated by the judge, "is intended to be a fact finding proceeding to determine the facts surrounding the death of Erik Scott."

This BS about the dog bite should be ended by the judge right now. It has no bearing on the incident whatsoever. Neither did his marital history, or anything else that didn't immediately pertain to his death.

Take notes everyone, because if you ever use your firearm in self defense, these are the tactics they will use to prove that you're a murderer, instead of a law abiding citizen acting in self defense.

Click to expand...

You are 100% correct.

Karma is a b&@@h though. Those three murders know what they did. The universe always finds a way to balance itself out.

The Coroners Inquest - A Viewing Guide Courtesy of the Nevada ACLU

http://aclunv.org/files/TheCoroner'sInquest-AViewer'sGuideFinal_0.pdf

The toxicology evidence is laughable. Certainly a lethal dose is a relative term, as we see that Erik was alive and well, that is up until the bullets hit him.
Just as one puff of marijuana will make me high as a kite, some people who are chronic smokers will smoke two joints as a way to wake up in the morning with little to no effect. They want to try to make it look like he was under the spell of some sort of "Reefer Madness", while nothing shows that it had any effect on his judgment.

Bravo_Sierra said:

Probably for the same reason people drive when they are "only a little buzzed," or flat out drunk: because they are dumb. People who drink or do drugs should never be in possession of ANY weapon. That includes guns, knives, cars, or anything else.

This guy had LETHAL doses of several drugs in his system. I second the opinion that a shooting was not justified in that particular sense, but still... this guy was out like Michael J. Fox playing Operation.

Click to expand...

I also find it troubling that this guy was maintaining such high-level doses and question his sense in carrying while in that condition. From the doctors' and some witness' descriptions this is going to weigh heavily against him.

Still in all, there are questions here which should be equally troubling to a responsible PD in determining training standards and procedures for dealing with these situations.

Obviously nobody should be shot merely for carrying while purchasing camping equipment and I hope the family gets some justice in this situation but it doesn't look good so far. It's a tragedy and should make us all sit back and consider how things would go if we had been in that situation.

Common Sense

Common sense dictates that if the guy had "lethal doses" of anything in his system then he would not have been alive. Think outside the box folks.

Mike said:

I think a threshold legal issue to begin with is whether the facts created reasonable articulable suspicion for the police to enage in any sort of non-consensual encounter to begin with - granted, he was reported to be carrying a concealed handgun because of accidental exposure/printing, and, that in Nevada this is acrime absent a pemrit to conceal.

But the US Supreme Court in Delaware v. Prouse (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=440&invol=648) held that except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Analogizing gun carry licenses to driver's licenses would seem to lead to a similar conclusion - police cannot seize citizens carrying guns to check for gun licenses absent reasonable articulable suspicion that the person is either not licensed or is comitting or about to commit a crime.

Click to expand...

Have you read the transcripts from the Connecticut case??? It's about this very question what is RAS when someone has a gun. Read what the judges says.

Nevada carrier said:

The DA thanks you for taking his bait. that "lethal dose" was was relevant to people who have not taken or developed a tolerance to it. They said that several times. Again, all of this is beside the point. Remember, this inquest as stated by the judge, "is intended to be a fact finding proceeding to determine the facts surrounding the death of Erik Scott."

This BS about the dog bite should be ended by the judge right now. It has no bearing on the incident whatsoever. Neither did his marital history, or anything else that didn't immediately pertain to his death.

Take notes everyone, because if you ever use your firearm in self defense, these are the tactics they will use to prove that you're a murderer, instead of a law abiding citizen acting in self defense.

Click to expand...

regarding "lethal dose" actually it is fully listed as LD50 or the level that is Lethal to 50 % of those given that dose.

I don't think you can say somebody who was on drugs didn't have their judgement impared, regardless of dose. I should know.

That said - I still think the PD should prove he was an immediate threat and not just stoned.

Interesting how they can obtain from cameras that were not recording the day of the incident the exact spot where casings were marked of the exact spot where the shooting occurred as well as a parking lot shot of people scattering. So lets get this straight, the videos were first corrupted, then they were not on the hard drive because costco's cameras were not recording that day, they broke down Wednesday before the incident and were going to be looked at Monday, and now we are able to pull static photos from those non-working, non-recording cameras of the exact location the shooting took place minus the body on the ground, or during the time he was "pointing" his gun at officers.

He must have been a criminal worthy of being shot 7 times while his hand(s) were up in the air, he was on pain killers! <eyeroll> a lethal dose you say? lethal for who? Im pretty sure Scott was walking and talking and breathing before he was killed.

Who has allergies that are on anti-histamine over the counter or prescriptions does that mean you do not carry? Do you not carry while under the influence of caffeine? Do you not carry while your taking pain medication for that root canal you just got? how about taking dayquil for that cold your fighting? all of these "impair your judgement"

Your body naturally builds up immunities to pain killers, and medications in general fyi. Especially someone that is in peek physical condition that is actively working out multiple times a week.

Washoe County Blues said:

I don't think you can say somebody who was on drugs didn't have their judgement impared, regardless of dose. I should know.

That said - I still think the PD should prove he was an immediate threat and not just stoned.

Click to expand...

So far they are making it sound as if they shot him because they thought he was high, not because they thought he was going to shoot someone. As for the "eye witness" testimony, so far They have a lot of people who work for Costco, probably in fear for their jobs telling the jury what their boss wants them to say. What about witnesses that may claim they saw something else? With a one sided process, the DA (who has no intention of undermining the credibility of the officers he trusts to assist him in gaining convictions) gets to pick and choose what gets heard and what does not.

If they want to have a "fact finding proceeding," to establish weather or not officers acted within the bounds of their office, There must be two sides.

There should be a panel of three judges, a jury of eleven, four being alternates. Counsel for the department who's officer(s) are involved should represent the officer, The state Bar of Nevada should then select on a rotating basis any lawyer operating under a Nevada law license to represent the people. There should be discovery, cross examination and both sides should be permitted to call witnesses. After all evidence is presented and all testimony is heard, the jury should then decide if the officers involved were justified or if their actions were criminal. If a unanimous decision can not be reached the presiding judges will rule by majority decision. if the act was justifiable or if the act was criminal. If the act was criminal the panel of judges will indict the offending officers and the District Attorney's office will be ordered to begin prosecution.

A little known secret about morphine. If you ever had a shot of morphine at any time in your life, it will show up in a drug test.
I was in a car accident when I was 17 yrs old. They gave me a shot to sew up a wound on my head. I went to work in a casino, and tested positive for morphine 42 yrs later.

They murdered him so he wouldn't die from the so-called overdose. Your SS in service to the community.

First they assassinate his body, now his character. What's next? One thing they probably didn't count on in planning all this medical history testimony is the new headline: "Police Gun Down Disabled Veteran." That's how it's looking to me about now.