Sentenced to Death for Shopping at COSTCO

[Remmy]

Once again, have you read about the testimony? In my post above are links to reports of the six days of testimony.

The sad things are that Scott carried while under the influence, failed to leave the Costco when asked, failed to follow the instructions of the officers, and pointed a gun at the officers. If Scott had done any of those things differently, he'd be alive.

He was never asked to leave the Costco and there was testimony stating this fact!

 

[Remmy]

I think that there is more than a preponderance of the evidence that the officer was reacting to a reasonably perceived threat.

So much of a threat they allowed Scott to walk past him and observed no notable threat which was officers involved testimony.

 

[eye95]

In response to your first post:

So read the actual testimony. The reporting on the testimony is straightforward. If it is your contention that the reporting is not factual, read the actual testimony and inform us as to where the reporting got it wrong.

Also, if you want to know the bias of the LVS, read the blogs which ostensibly are reporting facts and the news stories that are drawing conclusions. The reporting on the testimony supports the conclusion of the jury. However, the LVS stories aref quite critical of the police response. This clearly demonstrates that the bias of the LVS is against the officers, yet the picture one gets when reading about the testimony is that the officers were defending themselves.

Cross-examination implies that the witnesses represented one side or another. However, the lawyer for the family was free to submit questions to be asked--and all of his questions (except those that had already been asked) were asked.

He was never asked to leave the Costco and there was testimony stating this fact!

Excuuuuuuse me. He was told that he may not have the weapon in the store. What's the only way to correct that? Leave.

He was asked to leave. Maybe not in those precise words, but he was asked to leave.

So much of a threat they allowed Scott to walk past him and observed no notable threat which was officers involved testimony.

The threat occurred when he reached back to where they were told the weapon was, pulled out what was identified by most of the witnesses as a gun, and pointed it at one of the officers. Of course, the actual item was later identified as the gun in a holster.

If someone did that to you, YOU would be justified in shooting him. The officers have the same right to defend themselves.

Folks read about the testimony. If you believe that the LVS is biased for the officers (yeah, right), get the transcripts and read the actual testimony. Either way, you will see that there is tremendous agreement among the civilian witnesses as to what happened.

You will see a picture emerge that is quite different from the accounts that were posted here in a rush before all the facts were in.

 

[skidmark]

Sometimes it is good to look at what drives the cops in their responses to incidents like this. I'm not talking about the actual events as they unfold, but about the notions, concepts, and actual thinking that lies behind their behavior.

By pure coincidence (??) this http://www.aele.org/law/2010-10MLJ101.html was in the current AELE newsletter. (I'm using this url because there seems to be a glitch in going directly to the document. The redirect is safe.)

It is Part 1 of a discussion of the case law regarding the use of excessive force, especially pointing lethal weapons at suspects. Cops are [supposed to be] trained on this stuff as it emerges, as immunity depends on whether or not a cop ought to have known this stuff or not.

I'm not saying that this exonerates everything that happened. I'm just trying to set the stage for why the cops were acting the way they were when they first rolled up on scene, and how that then fits in with what happened next.

I'm still waiting to see if there will be anything like a lawsuit regarding the shots fired after the first two. Force Science Institute has a lot of information on the time between when a cop starts to press the trigger and the primer ignites and starts the round down the barrel. It's still, in my mind, a question to be resolved,

stay safe.

 

[swinokur]

Las Vegas Costco shooting ruled justifiable

http://www.lvrj.com/news/officer-testifies-he-heard-shots-but-did-not-see-shooting-103943584.html

 

[elsensei]

one other thing...

that would help. If these freaking cops would get their commands straight.

In a situation like that, you have multiple cops respond. Say just 3. They all arrive, pumped up, draw their guns and simultaneously scream:

cop1- freeze!
cop2- put your hands up!
cop3- get on the ground!

in a bad situation like this, (1) the victim (oc'er) can't hear everything clearly and (2) obeying any one of those 3 cops is disobeying the other two. IE victim tries to get on the ground to comply with cop 3 and needs his hands to lower himself to the ground which freaks out cop2 who said to put your hands up and cop1 who said to freeze.

They ought to train these clowns to have the dispatcher coordinate respondents and designate an order-giver. Too many chiefs, not enough indians.

And I know what I'm talking about, I was arrested for OC by 2 cops with guns drawn, giving conflicting commands. In testimony, one of them said I complied without incident and the other (of course) said I ignored his commands.

But that whole story has been resolved and will be posted within a day or so.

 

[jtrider]

The Scott family's lawyer, Ross Goodman:
"The real truth is that Erik Scott was gunned down while walking to the parking lot with his gun in his holster and was ambushed by these three officers, who gave him about three seconds from the initial commands to respond," Goodman said. "They used excessive force when they didn't need to."

Sums it up for me. Under ambush, I might be a tad reluctant to comply with anything until some things were considered. I didn't leave the house this morning after coaching myself to roll over like a bitch dog for the first thug that yelled at me. Although not under any medications, my normal resistance to aggression makes me a perfect target for the next execution.

 

[swinokur]

n a bad situation like this, (1) the victim (oc'er) can't hear everything clearly and (2) obeying any one of those 3 cops is disobeying the other two. IE victim tries to get on the ground to comply with cop 3 and needs his hands to lower himself to the ground which freaks out cop2 who said to put your hands up and cop1 who said to freeze.

They ought to train these clowns to have the dispatcher coordinate respondents and designate an order-giver. Too many chiefs, not enough indians.

This should be SOP. First officer on scene gives verbal commands backups don't yell and confuse the issue. I know there will be exceptions, but this would be a start. Sheriff Gillespie needs to go.

 

[eye95]

Once again, folks read about the testimony, and make up your own minds.

Kinda like the jury did. They were unanimous (and didn't have to be.) It took 1 hour and 15 minutes for every juror to decide that all three officers were justified in their actions.

 

[jtrider]

"Well, I don't think we ever expected anything different," said Nevada ACLU attorney Maggie McLetchie. "I don't think it really mattered what the facts were."

McLetchie says the inquest process is flawed and believes it leans heavily in favor of law enforcement. "The victim's family lawyer should be up there and be able to ask questions directly of the witnesses and should be able to get the witness list beforehand, so they can actually adequately prepare for the actual inquest," she said.


The District attorney can and does call all witnesses that can and will support the outcome the District Attorney desires. No cross examination, no witness list. A Masters Degree in Manipulation is not required to engineer this train wreck.

 

[eye95]

Again, folks, read about the testimony, and how questions were asked that were submitted by the Scotts' attorney.

Judge for yourself. These were ordinary citizens testifying to what they saw. You eyes will be opened in a stunning way.

 

[Gunslinger]

"No one was sentenced to death. That is just hyperbole posted at a time when we were all pretty much ignorant of the facts."
The cops sentenced him to death when they started shooting at a man with no gun in his hand. "Righteous shoot," what a ******* surprise. Wonder what bar they'll be going to for their celebration? While the former Army Officer's family buries him.

 

[eye95]

Again "sentenced to death" is hyperbole.

Folks, the facts are there for you to see. Just read about the testimony from ordinary citizen eyewitnesses here to see why the jury was so quick in arriving at a unanimous verdict that all three officers were justified in their actions:

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/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/27/erik-scott-day5/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/28/erik-scott-inquest-day6/

 

[Flyer22]

I see several people in this thread who would benefit by subscribing to Force Science News. Many people have no idea how extreme stress affects a person. I very, very strongly suggest that people on this board who are not already familar with Force Science News read these two articles and then re-evaluate their ideas about perceptions and life-threatening situations.

Researcher Alexander Jason reports that even under benign experimental conditions brain programming compels roughly 7 out of 10 officers to keep discharging rounds after being signaled to stop shooting. “In a real gunfight, under extraordinary stress and threat of death, an even much higher percentage would likely deliver extra shots,” Jason asserts.

http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews...ng-assailants-a-fresh-look-at-ois-subtleties/

The more imminent the life threat, the more the officer’s vision involuntarily narrows to isolate the threat and see it in greater detail,” Lewinski says. “He focuses and sees within a range of only about 3 to 5 degrees, a mere fraction of the breadth that the camera is recording. Comparing what a camera captures to what actually registers in an officer’s brain doesn’t give a true rendering of what the officer actually perceived in the stressful moment.

http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews...always-see-what-you-see-in-a-force-encounter/


And this one, while perhaps not directly relevant, is very eye-opening.

http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews...enomena-that-drove-the-fateful-bart-shooting/

 

[eye95]

What I see going on here is an extreme role-reversal. Had this been a case of an OCDO member being confronted with a man reportedly whacked-out on drugs and armed, and that man tried to remove his weapon, still in its holster, brought it up, and held it out to the member, and that member fired upon him, almost every poster here would be asserting that, in a split-second, no one could detect that the gun was in its holster, posting self-defense laws, reminding everyone that the other carriers in the area also have a right to protect the carrier seemingly being aimed at, and decrying the stupidity of the man pointing the holstered gun.

LEOs have the same right to defend themselves against what any reasonable person would see as an imminent threat of deadly force.

The jury got this right. They impartially looked over a mountain of eyewitness testimony and unanimously concluded that the officers were justified because they were in reasonable fear of imminent deadly force.

 

[jtrider]

I see several people in this thread who would benefit by subscribing to Force Science News. Many people have no idea how extreme stress affects a person. I very, very strongly suggest that people on this board who are not already familar with Force Science News read these two articles and then re-evaluate their ideas about perceptions and life-threatening situations.



http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews...ng-assailants-a-fresh-look-at-ois-subtleties/




http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews...always-see-what-you-see-in-a-force-encounter/


And this one, while perhaps not directly relevant, is very eye-opening.

http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews...enomena-that-drove-the-fateful-bart-shooting/

Not exactly what I would call objective opinions or reading. Force Science News is a twice monthly e-newsletter provided by the Force Science Institute and launched in 2004 by Executive Director Bill Lewinski, PhD, who claims to be a specialist in police psychology.

As an expert witness in nearly 100 cases, Lewinski always supports the use of force and defends police when they are accused of overstepping their bounds.

Lewinski now charges $475 an hour for his work as an expert witness. By his own estimate, he bills upward of $100,000 a year in expert testimony fees alone.

Lewinski took an odd path into law enforcement studies. He never wore a uniform himself—he began his career as a teacher and therapist working with mentally disabled children in Ontario, and only shifted into his current focus during his graduate work. His doctorate degree in police psychology is the first such degree in the country, received from Union Institute which doesn't even have an accredited psychology program. Police psychology isn't a field recognized by the American Psychological Association, and although Lewinski calls himself a psychologist, he isn't licensed to practice as one.

 

[1245A Defender]

saturation!!!

eye95 has posted 28 times in this thread.
expounding every concievable excuse to exonerate the actions of the cops.
still im not convinced that the cops should just get a walk in this case.

 

[eb31]

eye95 has posted 28 times in this thread.
expounding every concievable excuse to exonerate the actions of the cops.
still im not convinced that the cops should just get a walk in this case.

+1x10

 

[Thos.Jefferson]

When the story originally broke there were several witnesses who told the news , one of which was only a few feet from the victim, that the guy immediately put his hands up and was compliant. Why were none of these witnesses put on the stand? Where's the video? COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack. NO VIDEO NO TRUTH!!!

 

[Flyer22]

Not exactly what I would call objective opinions or reading. Force Science News is a twice monthly e-newsletter provided by the Force Science Institute and launched in 2004 by Executive Director Bill Lewinski, PhD, who claims to be a specialist in police psychology.

As an expert witness in nearly 100 cases, Lewinski always supports the use of force and defends police when they are accused of overstepping their bounds.

Lewinski now charges $475 an hour for his work as an expert witness. By his own estimate, he bills upward of $100,000 a year in expert testimony fees alone.

Lewinski took an odd path into law enforcement studies. He never wore a uniform himself—he began his career as a teacher and therapist working with mentally disabled children in Ontario, and only shifted into his current focus during his graduate work. His doctorate degree in police psychology is the first such degree in the country, received from Union Institute which doesn't even have an accredited psychology program. Police psychology isn't a field recognized by the American Psychological Association, and although Lewinski calls himself a psychologist, he isn't licensed to practice as one.

You would have more credibility if you had given your own thoughts, instead of copying and pasting (without attribution, I might add) from this article.
http://www.citypages.com/2010-04-28/news/bill-lewinski-defends-cops-accused-of-excessive-force/

In any case, that article seems to be incorrect. From what I can see, Dr. Lewinski does not call himself a psychologist. He calls himself a behavioral scientist.
http://www.forcescience.org/who.html

From their FAQ's (emphasis added):

What is "Force Science"?
It’s the research and application of unbiased scientific principles and processes to determine the true nature of human behavior in high stress and deadly force encounters. Force Science's groundbreaking, reproducible studies address real problems encountered by officers on the street and are meticulously documented.

And Dr. Lewinski is on various boards and councils around the nation, and is highly respected by many people.

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff/Lewinski/Bill.htm

http://www.policeone.com/trainingquestions/

http://www.supremejustice.net/Government2/policeshooting.htm

http://www.campussafetyconference.com/Program/Keynote/

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ki&cd=39&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a