when someone saw he was carrying, he was OCing. His firearm was no longer concealed there for it was OC.
Not selected by a criminal to be shot because he was carrying.
he was selected because he was carrying, that's why they were their. The fact that they were not charged or doesn't make their actions any less criminal.
A jury of citizens unanimously found that the shooting was justified.
A jury that was seated without due process to the victim, no preemptive challenge was allowed by anyone other than the prosecutor. The only person allowed to challenge a jurors bias and ask that they be excused was the prosecutor. The procedure of the inquest did not allow them to return any other verdict by design, even before the facts of the case were heard.
again, not criminal trial. Even if the jury did return a verdict of criminal, it wouldn't have been a conviction. If a thief steals your car and is never caught and convicted, he's still a thief. If he's caught but not convicted, he's now an emboldened thief. In this case the police are now emboldened murders.
For those unfamiliar with the facts: Scott was acting erratically. He was under the influence of drugs prescribed by several different doctors. He had enough drugs in his system to kill most of us, but had built up a resistance. He was told he could not carry his gun at Costco. He wouldn't leave. Cops were called and the store was evacuated. When Scott came out, he was told to show his hands and get on the ground. Instead, he reached to where the officers knew his gun was, pulled it out, and pointed it at one of the officers. That officer fired. The other officers then fired, killing Scott. It turns out that Scott had pulled the weapon still in its holster. However, the officers and other witnesses (with no dog in the hunt) testified that they believed that he had drawn his gun on the officer.
None of the witnesses were cross examined, none of the evidence scrutinized, no discovery and certainly no justice here. Eric Scott may have been guilty of possession of a firearm while under the influence of prescription drugs, and he may have been behaving oddly, but he was also never outright asked to leave. Nor did he threaten anyone with his firearm. Being told you cannot carry a gun somewhere is not the same as being asked or ordered to leave. The person making the statement ma believe that it is implied, but that's not how the law reads here in the free state of Nevada. The police may have had reason to investigate, but the nut cases at Costco exaggerated the circumstances so severely that the police believe there was a gunman wielding a firearm in a threatening manner. had they been told the truth they would not have had their guns drawn, with their finger on the trigger, ready to fire on a mouse fart.
The police mishandled a situation that was not as dire as they would have liked to believe. Eric Scott may have deserved a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm, but he did not deserve to be murdered.