-
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.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Las Vegas Eric Scott Memorial March!
- Thread starter kootsoup
- Start date
D'Arcy von Feist
New member
Screw him AND his family - his "untimely" death was HIS own fault!
Someone said he was shot like an "animal". NO. ANIMALS do NOT deserve that. GUN-WIELDING JUNKIES DO.
There is indisputable evidence that this piece of garbage was on drugs, wielding a gun, and had EVERY intention of using it.
I've heard "show compassion for his family". BS! What family? The family that made him the way he is? Oh, but what of the families of his potential INNOCENT victims? This piece of crap was NOT innocent.
Believe me, I have NO love for cops, but every once in a while, they DO protect and serve. And that is PRECISELY what happened in this instance.
This prick had NO compunctions about drawing a gun or putting other people's lives in danger and got EXACTLY what he deserved.
The deluded morons that would propose a MARCH in the name of this GARBAGE should choke on a bag of dicks (with a dose of reality).
He was a criminal.
He endangered the lives of other people who WERE innocent.
He got what he had coming to him.
END OF F'N STORY. No argument here, folks.
Someone said he was shot like an "animal". NO. ANIMALS do NOT deserve that. GUN-WIELDING JUNKIES DO.
There is indisputable evidence that this piece of garbage was on drugs, wielding a gun, and had EVERY intention of using it.
I've heard "show compassion for his family". BS! What family? The family that made him the way he is? Oh, but what of the families of his potential INNOCENT victims? This piece of crap was NOT innocent.
Believe me, I have NO love for cops, but every once in a while, they DO protect and serve. And that is PRECISELY what happened in this instance.
This prick had NO compunctions about drawing a gun or putting other people's lives in danger and got EXACTLY what he deserved.
The deluded morons that would propose a MARCH in the name of this GARBAGE should choke on a bag of dicks (with a dose of reality).
He was a criminal.
He endangered the lives of other people who WERE innocent.
He got what he had coming to him.
END OF F'N STORY. No argument here, folks.
D'Arcy von Feist
New member
Screw him AND his family - he got what he deserved and he brought it on himself.
DVC
Regular Member
QUOTED COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Original comments were tasteless
Thanks for your input, Officer.
Thanks for your input, Officer.
VegasGeorge
Regular Member
I think the evidence shows that the shooting was "justified" as the Coroner's verdict indicates. But, that doesn't mean that the police should have shot Erik. It doesn't mean that it was good police work. All it means is that taken as an out of context snapshot of time, at the moment the officers fired their weapons it's reasonable to believe they perceived a deadly threat. It doesn't mean that the officers' perception of the threat was reasonable. Just that they had it.
I'm convinced from the evidence that Erik stupidly took his holstered gun out of his waistband and tried to hand it to the cops. He was holding the holster with the gun in it and extending his hand forward toward the policeman. In his mind, he was "disarming" and surrendering his weapon. A fatally dumb move which was probably induced at least in part by drug impaired thinking. For whatever reason the police were unable to distinguish between a holstered gun and a gun in hand, perceived an immediate deadly threat, and started shooting. I don't believe Officer Mosher's testimony that he fired first because he thought Scott might be able to shoot while his gun was in the holster. That's really too far fetched. Mosher only offered that testimony because Scott's gun was found in its holster after the shooting. That doesn't look good for the police.
So much for the "snapshot of time" that justified the shooting. Now let's consider what led up to that moment.
No crime at all had been committed. Erik had not been asked to leave the store. Erik was in the process of purchasing the merchandise he had been looking at. He was in legal possession of his weapon. Erik was walking peaceably out of the store, hands empty, posing no apparent threat to anyone.
The police had already arrived in force. They had their own eyeballs on the situation, and on Erik. The police were in total control of the situation, and were directing Erik's movements. There were four policemen within easy reaching distance of Erik as he walked past them while leaving the store. Yet, the best solution for what they thought was a problem (but which in actuality wasn't any problem at all) was to draw their weapons and start yelling conflicting commands at Erik. That is absolutely lousy police work. In fact, it isn't even police work at all. Any gang or vigilante group would have done the same. Pull out your guns and start screaming at your opponent.
In my view, the police themselves created the situation in which they perceived the deadly threat. They couldn't have set Erik up more effectively if they had actually planned on killing him. It's beyond shoddy work, it's grossly negligent work. As a citizen in Las Vegas, I demand more from my police department than that.
Bottom line: The police mishandled a situation so badly that they wound up having to justifiably kill an innocent man.
I'm convinced from the evidence that Erik stupidly took his holstered gun out of his waistband and tried to hand it to the cops. He was holding the holster with the gun in it and extending his hand forward toward the policeman. In his mind, he was "disarming" and surrendering his weapon. A fatally dumb move which was probably induced at least in part by drug impaired thinking. For whatever reason the police were unable to distinguish between a holstered gun and a gun in hand, perceived an immediate deadly threat, and started shooting. I don't believe Officer Mosher's testimony that he fired first because he thought Scott might be able to shoot while his gun was in the holster. That's really too far fetched. Mosher only offered that testimony because Scott's gun was found in its holster after the shooting. That doesn't look good for the police.
So much for the "snapshot of time" that justified the shooting. Now let's consider what led up to that moment.
No crime at all had been committed. Erik had not been asked to leave the store. Erik was in the process of purchasing the merchandise he had been looking at. He was in legal possession of his weapon. Erik was walking peaceably out of the store, hands empty, posing no apparent threat to anyone.
The police had already arrived in force. They had their own eyeballs on the situation, and on Erik. The police were in total control of the situation, and were directing Erik's movements. There were four policemen within easy reaching distance of Erik as he walked past them while leaving the store. Yet, the best solution for what they thought was a problem (but which in actuality wasn't any problem at all) was to draw their weapons and start yelling conflicting commands at Erik. That is absolutely lousy police work. In fact, it isn't even police work at all. Any gang or vigilante group would have done the same. Pull out your guns and start screaming at your opponent.
In my view, the police themselves created the situation in which they perceived the deadly threat. They couldn't have set Erik up more effectively if they had actually planned on killing him. It's beyond shoddy work, it's grossly negligent work. As a citizen in Las Vegas, I demand more from my police department than that.
Bottom line: The police mishandled a situation so badly that they wound up having to justifiably kill an innocent man.
Last edited:
2
28kfps
Guest
I am of the opinion it is to controversial to have an open carry march in Eric’s memory at this time.
I did have a chance to watch some of the proceedings I agree with VGorge I believe Eric made a terrible mistake and was trying to disarm himself by pulling his gun and holster from his waist. The gun was still in the holster and on the ground after the shooting. I do not know of anyone that practices pulling their gun still in the holster then forcing their finger down into the holster to reach the trigger as suggested by the officer. I also believe the police botched this. Both sides making mistakes sadly equaled to what appeared to me as VegasGorge said having to justifiably kill an innocent man.
I did have a chance to watch some of the proceedings I agree with VGorge I believe Eric made a terrible mistake and was trying to disarm himself by pulling his gun and holster from his waist. The gun was still in the holster and on the ground after the shooting. I do not know of anyone that practices pulling their gun still in the holster then forcing their finger down into the holster to reach the trigger as suggested by the officer. I also believe the police botched this. Both sides making mistakes sadly equaled to what appeared to me as VegasGorge said having to justifiably kill an innocent man.
Maestro Pistolero
Regular Member
I think the evidence shows that the shooting was "justified" as the Coroner's verdict indicates. But, that doesn't mean that the police should have shot Erik. It doesn't mean that it was good police work. All it means is that taken as an out of context snapshot of time, at the moment the officers fired their weapons it's reasonable to believe they perceived a deadly threat. It doesn't mean that the officers' perception of the threat was reasonable. Just that they had it.
I'm convinced from the evidence that Erik stupidly took his holstered gun out of his waistband and tried to hand it to the cops. He was holding the holster with the gun in it and extending his hand forward toward the policeman. In his mind, he was "disarming" and surrendering his weapon. A fatally dumb move which was probably induced at least in part by drug impaired thinking. For whatever reason the police were unable to distinguish between a holstered gun and a gun in hand, perceived an immediate deadly threat, and started shooting. I don't believe Officer Mosher's testimony that he fired first because he thought Scott might be able to shoot while his gun was in the holster. That's really too far fetched. Mosher only offered that testimony because Scott's gun was found in its holster after the shooting. That doesn't look good for the police.
So much for the "snapshot of time" that justified the shooting. Now let's consider what led up to that moment.
No crime at all had been committed. Erik had not been asked to leave the store. Erik was in the process of purchasing the merchandise he had been looking at. He was in legal possession of his weapon. Erik was walking peaceably out of the store, hands empty, posing no apparent threat to anyone.
The police had already arrived in force. They had their own eyeballs on the situation, and on Erik. The police were in total control of the situation, and were directing Erik's movements. There were four policemen within easy reaching distance of Erik as he walked past them while leaving the store. Yet, the best solution for what they thought was a problem (but which in actuality wasn't any problem at all) was to draw their weapons and start yelling conflicting commands at Erik. That is absolutely lousy police work. In fact, it isn't even police work at all. Any gang or vigilante group would have done the same. Pull out your guns and start screaming at your opponent.
In my view, the police themselves created the situation in which they perceived the deadly threat. They couldn't have set Erik up more effectively if they had actually planned on killing him. It's beyond shoddy work, it's grossly negligent work. As a citizen in Las Vegas, I demand more from my police department than that.
Bottom line: The police mishandled a situation so badly that they wound up having to justifiably kill an innocent man.
This is well put, and exactly my view of the situation based on the evidence presented. The dynamic take-down was way out-of-line based on his behavior, and in fact escalated the incident to an unnecessarily dangerous level.
They had all the cover and time they needed to calmly give Eric clear instructions, and there can be no doubt he would have complied. He was, in fact, attempting to comply with a nonsensical order to drop a gun that was not currently in his hand.
They may have had to shoot, but only because of the inept, shoddy police work, poor training, the failure of the sergeant to control the scene before that moment arrived.
Last edited: