Officer invol. shooting

[Grapeshot]

$25,000 is a BS offer. If they really believed that the video exists then the bidding should start at $1,000,000 as that is the minimum of what it would be worth. No matter what the video showed it would prove a cover up and guarantee them an award against the police worth several million.

Please explain.

 

[PT111]

Please explain.

The fact that all of this talk and testimony about there is no video and all of a sudden a video appears would show, or at least give the appearance of a cover up. Since the coroner's inquest exonerated the LEO and the testimony was that the equipment was faulty was accepted, all of a sudden a video appears then it wouldn't matter what it shows the emphasis will be on that there was a cover up. This certainly would be enough to sway a jury in a civil suit as they would have proof of criminal actions on the part of the police. The jury would certainly find in favor of the family then. Without a video they are going to have to rely on those 25+ witnesses that didn't testify at the inquest due to not wanting to be cross examined along with the sympathy of the jury. Right now I say they have a tough case to convince a jury with only the testimony that has been given so far.

 

[Grapeshot]

Please explain.

The fact that all of this talk and testimony about there is no video and all of a sudden a video appears would show, or at least give the appearance of a cover up. Since the coroner's inquest exonerated the LEO and the testimony was that the equipment was faulty was accepted, all of a sudden a video appears then it wouldn't matter what it shows the emphasis will be on that there was a cover up. This certainly would be enough to sway a jury in a civil suit as they would have proof of criminal actions on the part of the police. The jury would certainly find in favor of the family then. Without a video they are going to have to rely on those 25+ witnesses that didn't testify at the inquest due to not wanting to be cross examined along with the sympathy of the jury. Right now I say they have a tough case to convince a jury with only the testimony that has been given so far.

You miss the point - without the video we do not know but that it might condemn Scott.

While I understand that "missing or damaged" videos are rightfully suspect, but simply finding this one would not shift the conclusion unless the images substantiate your prejudged determination. Too, finding a copy of this video would hardly offer proof of who tampered with it or why.

 

[PT111]

You miss the point - without the video we do not know but that it might condemn Scott.

While I understand that "missing or damaged" videos are rightfully suspect, but simply finding this one would not shift the conclusion unless the images substantiate your prejudged determination. Too, finding a copy of this video would hardly offer proof of who tampered with it or why.

I agree fully that it might condemn Scott but to me the fact that all the testimony about there was no video and all of a sudden it appeared would override anything that the video actually shows. "If the glove does't fit, you must acquit" type deal where something that really didn't have a lot of weight one way or the other became a major part of the case.

Just finding it wouldn't be any proof of who did the tampering but would not actually need to prove who did it as that would always be suspect just as that the thought that a video exists. Just more FUD for the masses.

 

[eye95]

The testimony was not that there is no video, but that the video from the surveillance cameras at Costco was corrupted.

They are soliciting entirely separate videos from phones and camcorders. I don't think any likely exists or the owners of the videos would have been clamoring for media attention or trying to make a buck on them. At the very least, they would have been altruistically trying to get the videos entered into evidence.

The reward is a just public relations ploy. It allows the lawyers to blame the lack of video if (probably when) they lose the civil suit.

 

[Yard Sale]

update

One of Erik Scott's killers has been charged with an unrelated felony, supplying a convicted felon with a firearm.

officer in Costco shooting faces felony gun charge

 

[Gunslinger]

One of Erik Scott's killers has been charged with an unrelated felony, supplying a convicted felon with a firearm.

officer in Costco shooting faces felony gun charge

One of the hero cops??? How can that be???? Where's Eye to tell us it's all just a mistake. Without his gun and an essentially unarmed man to murder, I'm sure he'll have a nice time in the joint. I hear Big Wally needs a roommate.

 

[eye95]

...Where's Eye to tell us it's all just a mistake[.]...

As with the subject shooting, I'll wait until the facts are in to pass judgment. You see, first instincts are often wrong. My first instinct in the Costco shooting was that the officers went after some unfortunate carrier, guns-ablazing. That was wrong. Fortunately, I kept that judgment to myself until I found out it was wrong.

I again will wait to pass judgment until more facts are in. However, it does look bad for the officer. Since the investigators are saying that he is cooperating with their investigation of others, he likely is guilty of some crimes and is trying to mitigate his punishment. However, at the moment, since we don't know, this subject is ripe only for Olympic Conclusion Jumping. I'll leave that to the medalists 'round here.

 

[Gunslinger]

As with the subject shooting, I'll wait until the facts are in to pass judgment. You see, first instincts are often wrong. My first instinct in the Costco shooting was that the officers went after some unfortunate carrier, guns-ablazing. That was wrong. Fortunately, I kept that judgment to myself until I found out it was wrong.

I again will wait to pass judgment until more facts are in. However, it does look bad for the officer. Since the investigators are saying that he is cooperating with their investigation of others, he likely is guilty of some crimes and is trying to mitigate his punishment. However, at the moment, since we don't know, this subject is ripe only for Olympic Conclusion Jumping. I'll leave that to the medalists 'round here.

Come on. Fact: he was arrested and charged with a felony which is also a Federal Felony; fact: he is squealing to cut a deal with the DA and/or US Attorney. If it flies and quacks...

 

[eye95]

Come on. Fact: he was arrested and charged with a felony which is also a Federal Felony; fact: he is squealing to cut a deal with the DA and/or US Attorney. If it flies and quacks...

Hmmm...That seems to be what I was saying, just not appending the word "fact" repeatedly.

 

[Gunslinger]

Hmmm...That seems to be what I was saying, just not appending the word "fact" repeatedly.

"I again will wait to pass judgment until more facts are in." That ship has sailed.

 

[KBCraig]

Mendiola has gone from charged, to indicted.

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/27890291/detail.html

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/13/officer-involved-erik-scott-shooting-indicted-gun-/