Sentenced to Death for Shopping at COSTCO

Wastelander said:

Sad and horrible, and I don't know about there but the Costco near me has a big sign prohibiting firearms next to the door--he DID NOT have the right to be carrying in the store. If he had listened to the store employee (or the big sign) and left he would still be alive. That said, the police did not react properly at all and this should not have happened, regardless

Click to expand...

before you make accusations of what he did wrong take the time to read the article, misinformed people are what caused this incident so don't become one of them.....

"For the record, the Costco did not have signs posted prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Scott did not violate any laws in carrying his weapon in the store."

oh and your statement of...the story i read.....the original post here gives you a link

Here's the link.
http://standupamericaus.com/legally-...lt-first:38508

Lmfao! God, some of you people just slay me. Especially the OP.

The inquest of this incident is now being held. The reporting on three days thus far can be found here:

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

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/erik-scott-day2/

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

You can draw (pun intended) your own conclusions...

John and Mike: Shouldn't this thread be moved to a more appropriate place?

(On edit: Thanks for moving this from the Rules section.)


I have been hesitant to comment on this story because I felt I was only getting one side. Reading reports of some of the testimony at the coroner's inquest leads me to believe that that one side was grossly inaccurate.

After reading the testimony in the link, I conclude that Scott was under the influence. He was operating irrationally. He was carrying unlawfully (being under the influence). He behaved in a hostile way when legitimately confronted by a Costco employee. He failed to comply with the clear instructions of the officers on the scene. He attempted to disarm himself--even though he was not asked to do so. Disarming himself, even with the firearm in the holster gave the appearance of drawing his weapon. While it is unfortunate that the officer shot Scott, when Scott was not an actual threat, the officer reasonably believed Scott was drawing on him. The officer was, therefore, correct to fire on Scott, as would be any of the other officers who fired on Scott.

The fault for what happened to Scott falls squarely on his shoulders. He should not have been carrying under the influence. When asked to leave, he should have left. When the officers told him to put up his hands and get on the ground, he should have followed those instructions and allowed the officers to disarm him. He made three very serious mistakes. Not making any one of those mistakes would have saved his life.

The officers made one mistake. However, that mistake was a reasonable one to make and one for which they should bear no responsibility.

No video No truth

Day 4:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/25/erik-scott-inquest-day4/

donny said:

you people

Click to expand...

does that mean people who oc ?
does that mean people who have posted on this article?
what exactly do you mean by you people ?

I meant some of the people who posted in this thread? What part of "especially the OP" didn't wasn't clear?

Bit since you asked I'll be brutally honest by saying when I first got into the OC thing some time back I initially embraced it. Since then, after reading this forum, I've come to the conclusion OCers are the bottom of the barrel among firearm owners and the majority of them have multiple screws loose. It's enough to send any normal gun owner over to the dark side.

Probably get banned for that. Ah well, no loss...

One has to wonder why you are here. If you don't like OCers, your only purpose here would be to antagonize them. I gotta tell you, I have more respect for some of the folks here whose views I find extreme than I do for anyone who would deliberately place himself in a situation that facilitates his ability to be antisocial.

donny said:

I meant some of the people who posted in this thread? What part of "especially the OP" didn't wasn't clear?

Bit since you asked I'll be brutally honest by saying when I first got into the OC thing some time back I initially embraced it. Since then, after reading this forum, I've come to the conclusion OCers are the bottom of the barrel among firearm owners and the majority of them have multiple screws loose. It's enough to send any normal gun owner over to the dark side.

Probably get banned for that. Ah well, no loss...

Click to expand...

Since I have been reading this forum I have found it to be extremely informative on the law and a great educational exercise. Now I do agree with you that a few on here do seem to have a few screws loose but they are a very small minority. The majority are just trying to promote a cause that they believe in. Some have had bad run-ins with the law and it has caused their opinions of LEO to be swayed from what we were probably taught as children. I advise you to stick around and read with an open mind as you will learn a great deal. We often accuse the media of being very anti-gun and of biased reporting but I also find many of the item posted in here from pro-gun media outlets to alos be extremely biased and inaccurate. When I first read about case I was WTF, there has to be more to it than what is being reported. It seemed to be a very bad case of overreaction by the Costco employees and the police. Now that I have read more of the actual details of the case I understand. It was not simply a case of someone being reported because they were carrying a gun. It still may have been some overreaction but nothing like the original reports.

Stick around and learn, that is what I have done.

Wow, that made me sad & angry. I will say it again...Who here thinks we live in a Free Country ? We live in a Totalitarian Police state, that has become a Monarchy & we are now subjects. Amerika land of the Police death squads. In ww2 Germany they were called the SS, HERE THEY ARE CALLED POLICE.

Seems like a justified shooting

It seems there's testimony from 3 witnesses that say Scott drew his gun, so if that's true it makes more likely to be a justified shooting by the police. If, as witnesses claim, he pointed his weapon at the officers, they were completely within their rights to shoot him. It's quite possible, with the style holster pictured in the blog, that he managed to withdraw the entire holster with the gun, but I think it would be hard for the officers to quickly see that the gun were still holstered if he were pointing it at them. Even if he pointed the holstered gun at the officers, they would seem to have reasonably concluded he was pointing a gun at them to shoot them with it. While it's unfortunate, and it seems like Scott was not trying to threaten or shoot the police officers, from what evidence has been submitted thus far it seems like the officers were justified in responding to the call as they did and in shooting him.

What I always do when I read stories like this is try to learn something from them. In this case, it further reinforces my belief that carrying while in any way impaired is a bad idea. Also, it's made me think more about what I would do if confronted by police and told to put down my holstered gun. I don't understand how Officer Mosher expected him to put his holstered gun down without drawing it. Perhaps the wisest course of action would be to calmly say in a normal voice, "Officer, I can't put my gun down without drawing it, and I'm not willing to draw my gun because it could make you feel unsafe. I would prefer that you disarm me instead. Please tell me how you'd like to proceed." Not that saying anything in any voice would necessarily work when facing officers who feel their lives are in danger and are in condition red or black, though one would hope officers have the training to overcome the stress of the situation and think rationally.

But even there, it seems like the officers had already ordered him to lay on the ground several times, and he hadn't complied. It probably wouldn't have come up if he had done as they ordered and never moved his hand toward his weapon.

Yep. As each day of testimony passes, it becomes clearer that the shooting was justified. The carrier was 100% in the wrong.

eye95:

I am not convinced that The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police acted appropiately.

Nevertheless..., I will listen carefully to the evidence that Nevada presents, but am still convinced that Nevada has something to hide, because; preliminary accounts by others suggest the Shooting was less than Justified.

aadvark

There's two things that ain't gonna happen after reading this thread.

1. I'm never going to Costco again... for anything. Personal boycott

2. Las Vegas has lost at least one 'tourist'... as well as the rest of Nevada. I carry... 'n if this is the attitude of the LEO's up there... they're more of a threat to the citizenry than the crooks are. This ins't the first I've heard of this JBT attitude. IMHO... this guy was murdered.

Let me add... I was a cop. I've disarmed more than one bad guy. (By myself) If you're that much of a hysterical wuss... get another occupation.

Sounds like both sides were a little bit in the wrong. He definitely should not have tried to disarm himself, it would look too much like he was drawing the firearm. The police probably shouldn't have shot him as soon as they did, but this was a very stressful situation they were in. They showed up for a call about a belligerent irrational MWAG and watched Costco evacuate all its patrons. So they were standing in a parking lot full of police officers, civilians, and one potential gunman. I think it was unprofessional to shoot him before they were sure he was a threat, but I also think that it was a justified shooting due to the circumstances. As for the continued shooting after he was down, again justified considering the circumstances however that was also unprofessional.

aardvark: Have you had an opportunity to read about the four days of testimony so far? There are some discrepancies, however there is massive agreement among the dozens of witnesses on several points:

--Scott was armed and acting erratically. (The autopsy revealed he had potentially lethal levels of drugs in his system.)

--Scott was asked to leave and did not.

--Scott did not follow clear instructions from the officers to get on the ground.

--Scott pulled out his weapon and pointed it at the officers (later, the gun was discovered to have still been in the holster, however the officers had no way of knowing this within the split second they had to react).

Had Scott not been carrying under the influence OR had he left when asked to do so OR had he followed the instructions of the officers, he would be alive today.

From the officer's POV: They were confronting a person who has just broken the law (trespassing), who is known to be armed and well-trained, who is acting in a way indicating his being under the influence, mentally ill, or both, who is not following instructions designed to ensure everyone's safety, and who has just reached for what appears to be his weapon and pointed it at one of them.

If I am the officer, I shoot until he is no longer a threat to me. It's all on Scott.

Sonora Rebel said:

SNIP If you're that much of a hysterical wuss... get another occupation.

Click to expand...

I've been suspecting this might be part of the problem with OCer-police encounters. Neurotic Badgius boobuses.

Of course, it may be a separate sub-species. Call them Badgius wussicus. Entomologists--people who study pests and other insects--would probably call them something simpler. Maybe, Yellow-striped blue bug.

Sonora Rebel said:

There's two things that ain't gonna happen after reading this thread.

PHP:

1. I'm never going to Costco again... for anything. Personal boycott

2. Las Vegas has lost at least one 'tourist'... as well as the rest of Nevada. I carry... 'n if this is the attitude of the LEO's up there... they're more of a threat to the citizenry than the crooks are. This ins't the first I've heard of this JBT attitude. IMHO... this guy was murdered.

Let me add... I was a cop. I've disarmed more than one bad guy. (By myself) If you're that much of a hysterical wuss... get another occupation.

Click to expand...

Amen! I agree 100%.

So all of the Costco employees, are on the same page.
That's not suspicious at all.

So the two physicians, well educated, and likely exposed to this kind of traumatic aftermath, both agree there was no reason to shoot Erik.
Interesting.

Some of the other witnesses have ties to law enforcement.
Nope. Not suspicious...



The one deal breaker for me is the high level of drugs in his system.
Bad choice dude...


RIP brother.

Have you read about the testimony?

Most of the testimony is from non-LE, non-Costco, and non-medical personnel. And, it is almost exclusively damning of Scott's actions.

Folks, read the links to the reports on the testimony:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/coroners-inquest-erik-scott/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/erik-scott-day2/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/25/erik-scott-inquest-day4/