Sentenced to Death for Shopping at COSTCO

mcdonalk said:

Eye, you're not going to convince anyone who doesn't believe that this was a good shoot. You're not even going to convince anyone 'on the fence'. All you have done is convince people that you refuse to admit the possibility that a group of cops could be in the wrong.

Click to expand...

Really? No one, huh? Being that I know of at least one poster whose mind I changed, I'd say your pronouncement is just a tad arrogant.

BTW, I am not trying to convince anyone that it was a "good" shoot. I am trying to get folks to read the testimony (for which zero support has been presented that it was biased) and make up their own mind as to whether the shooting was "justified," whether the officers reasonably believed that one of them was in mortal danger when they fired.

And that is the only question that mattered at the hearing. It will be the key question in any civil or criminal trial. The officers will get favorable verdicts in any other trial as long as the jurors believe the officers had that reasonable belief.

And, I'm glad. Not necessarily just for the officer, but for us. If one of us is involved in a self-defense shooting, that is the same question that would have to be asked and answered to determines whether or not one of us goes to prison.

You didn't convince me either...

Because I agree with you 100%. How people can come up with a different view of the facts is beyond me..

Forget opinions=just the facts.

It's been proven that pointing a gun with or without a holster on it at 3 cops is bad for your health.

but whatever as the kids say.

A very unfortunate situation mishandled by everyone involved. My condolences to his family and friends.

eye95 said:

Really? No one, huh? Being that I know of at least one poster whose mind I changed, I'd say your pronouncement is just a tad arrogant.

BTW, I am not trying to convince anyone that it was a "good" shoot. I am trying to get folks to read the testimony (for which zero support has been presented that it was biased) and make up their own mind as to whether the shooting was "justified," whether the officers reasonably believed that one of them was in mortal danger when they fired.

And that is the only question that mattered at the hearing. It will be the key question in any civil or criminal trial. The officers will get favorable verdicts in any other trial as long as the jurors believe the officers had that reasonable belief.

And, I'm glad. Not necessarily just for the officer, but for us. If one of us is involved in a self-defense shooting, that is the same question that would have to be asked and answered to determines whether or not one of us goes to prison.

Click to expand...

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack and inappropriate

wolffe said:

[removed personal insult, threat, and vulgarity]

Click to expand...

The beauty of the OC movement is that we present rational rebuttals to the emotional tirades of the antis. When one talks calmly in response to screaming rants, people listen. We should try to apply that idea in all of our discussions, even among ourselves.

Oh, and I choose not to read your posts.

wolffe said:

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack and inappropriate

Click to expand...

I see no personal insult. Being sickened by someones statements is NOT a personal insult.

I see no threat. Saying that someone deserves something bad is NOT a threat.

The vulgar statement IS, however, over the top and 100% uncalled for.

wolffe said:

you sicken me.......every chance we get.

Click to expand...

Wolffe,
I can't figure out what has your panties in a bunch. I read the "testimony" of the hearing and am now on the fence myself as to whether or not it was a good shoot. I saw the news interviews of people saying he never motioned for his weapon but none of them showed to court. I am with eye95, read the reports and testimony and make up your own mind.

Well said. And abusing an epithet is abusing an epithet and NOT abusing a (family) name.

rodbender said:

I see no personal insult. Being sickened by someones statements is NOT a personal insult.

I see no threat. Saying that someone deserves something bad is NOT a threat.

The vulgar statement IS, however, over the top and 100% uncalled for.

Click to expand...

I don't see how this could be considered a 'good shoot'. I understand that the cops had bad information going in, and that they had no idea who they were dealing with. A lot of folks have been saying that we should have the same standards for police officers that we do for ourselves. They feared for their lives so they opened fire.

Personally, I don't buy that. Not in this case.

We always say as responsible citizens that you shoot to STOP the threat. Not to kill, not to wound, just to enable your own survival. Period.

The majority of the bullets that entered this man's body entered through his back, after he was already down. That's in itself is reason enough to call it. He was down. He was stopped. His gun was still in it's holster. Disarm him and get him to a hospital. Continued fire is no longer legal unless he presents a threat.

That would be the same whether it is a LEO or an OCer. Personally in this case I would hold police to a higher standard than the average citizen because they are supposed to be trained to apprehend when possible. We are not. Police have tazers, less than lethal ammo, mace and spend hours in training learning how to tackle, disarm and cuff people. They are trained to assess situations and de-escalate when possible. Why then is there a man lying dead in the dust with bullets in his back for nothing more than carrying a legal weapon with a permit.

Should have been handled differently, and that's on the responding officers in this particular case. I think there are plenty of good officers out there, and had a few of them been present everyone could have walked away from this one.

frommycolddeadhands said:

I don't see how this could be considered a 'good shoot'...

Click to expand...

No one has determined that this was a "good shoot." The coroner's inquest's job was to determine whether it was "justifiable," "excusable," or "criminal." The jury determined it was justifiable for the very reasons that you or I would not be held liable if we were involved in a self-defense shooting: The officers reasonably that one of them was in immediate mortal danger.

donny said:

Sigh. Nobody is claiming this wasn't a tragedy or that mistakes weren't made but the point of the inquest was to determine if the shooting was justified and any truly reasonable person can clearly see it was.

You did your best eye95 but as they say: "you can't argue with a drunken man". Or men in this case. Paranoid zealots with no judgment or common sense. As I said, multiple screws loose...

Click to expand...

Wow. Good thing you jumped in with your 26 posts. Now I see the light. We're "Paranoid Zealots" if we disagree with your opinion. Any you're one of the "truly reasonable person(s)." Thanks for clarifying the thread. Eye and I (respectfully throughout) disagree. But now that you're backing him, well, that changes everything.

http://tinyurl.com/5wftelu

I'm not backing anyone...

donny said:

http://tinyurl.com/5wftelu

I'm not backing anyone...

Click to expand...

that is disgusting.

Chris Collins, executive director of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association...(snip)...called the two incidents the "top two heroic events our officers participated in last year."

"I don't see it as a controversial shooting," he said about the Costco shooting. "What potentially could have been a bad situation they brought to an end with no citizens being hurt.

Click to expand...

I guess he was neither a citizen nor 'hurt' when he was gunned down, huh?:uhoh:

donny said:

http://tinyurl.com/5wftelu

I'm not backing anyone...

Click to expand...

Funny how one of the cops who shot Scott, was charged with a felony a few months later....

sfmiller08 said:

Funny how one of the cops who shot Scott, was charged with a felony a few months later....

Click to expand...

And how they all lied about what actually happened.....

sudden valley gunner said:

And how they all lied about what actually happened.....

Click to expand...

Even after reading all the testimonies, im still skeptical. I do believe that Scott pulled out a gun, though it may have been in a holster. But i also believe that the officers fired too soon and used excessive force. I do think its very convenient for them how the tape was messed up and they didnt get the camera fixed until the night after the shooting...

sfmiller08 said:

Even after reading all the testimonies, im still skeptical. I do believe that Scott pulled out a gun, though it may have been in a holster. But i also believe that the officers fired too soon and used excessive force. I do think its very convenient for them how the tape was messed up and they didnt get the camera fixed until the night after the shooting...

Click to expand...

The guy could have been trying to comply with orders....

When I was ordered by an officer to hand over my firearm I refused, raised my hands above my head and said "Oh no officer I am not handling my firearm in your presence". I am glad I did seeing the evil smirk on the officers face as I said that.

sudden valley gunner said:

The guy could have been trying to comply with orders....

When I was ordered by an officer to hand over my firearm I refused, raised my hands above my head and said "Oh no officer I am not handling my firearm in your presence". I am glad I did seeing the evil smirk on the officers face as I said that.

Click to expand...

And I honestly think thats what he was trying to do, just went about it the wrong way, and officers overreacted. And i dont think ill ever believe that it was a good shoot by officers unless I see the camera footage...

eye95 said:

That is just factually inaccurate. Apart from specifying rights that government may not infringe, The Constitution is silent on municipal governments and municipal police forces. The Constitution's near-exclusive raison d'etre is to define the limitations of the federal government.

Furthermore, referring to police forces as "hit squads" qualifies, IMO, as cop-bashing and, if the owners agree with that assessment, is a violation of Rule 6.

Moving on.

Click to expand...

Wrong McDonald
Bill of Rights via 14th i believe. States are held to it too