Sentenced to Death for Shopping at COSTCO

[eye95]

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? [personal attack removed]...

Have you read the accounts of the testimony? Some did say things like what you reported. The overwhelming majority of the witnesses report seeing Scott point a gun at the officer. There will be discrepancies in eyewitness testimony. When you have the volume of testimony that we have here, you have to look for the consistencies in that testimony. The consistency is that, instead of getting down, as ordered by the officer, Scott reached around where his gun was and pointed what he pulled at the officer. Generally, the witnesses and the officers thought the officer was in mortal danger.

I will ask you one more time not to descend into person insults. It is unbecoming and does not add credibility to your argument.

 

[Gunslinger]

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.

Shoot someone who is found to not have drawn his weapon and you'll be charged with, at the least, voluntary manslaughter. Nobody is saying cops can't defend themselves. What they can't do is act with reckless abandon culminating in the death of a man who posed no threat--gun never left holster. Unless, of course, the fix is in, as it clearly was in this case. Then they can gun down anyone they choose because he "acted strangely."

 

[eye95]

Shoot someone who is found to not have drawn his weapon and you'll be charged with, at the least, voluntary manslaughter. Nobody is saying cops can't defend themselves. What they can't do is act with reckless abandon culminating in the death of a man who posed no threat--gun never left holster. Unless, of course, the fix is in, as it clearly was in this case. Then they can gun down anyone they choose because he "acted strangely."

Not true. If you reasonably believe that you are in mortal danger, you can clai justification.

Most of the witnesses and the officers involved believed that Scott was pointing a gun at the officer. (He was; it was just holstered.) Therefore, the officers reasonably believed that one of them was in mortal danger, hence the "justified" verdict.

The officers have the same right as you or I to defend themselves against deadly force.

 

[eb31]

Shoot someone who is found to not have drawn his weapon and you'll be charged with, at the least, voluntary manslaughter. Nobody is saying cops can't defend themselves. What they can't do is act with reckless abandon culminating in the death of a man who posed no threat--gun never left holster. Unless, of course, the fix is in, as it clearly was in this case. Then they can gun down anyone they choose because he "acted strangely."

The fix was definitely on in this case.

 

[Gunslinger]

Not true. If you reasonably believe that you are in mortal danger, you can clai justification.

QUOTE]

YOU would have the burden of proof to back up your claim. A claim of justification is not an affirmative defense. Not a position I would want to be in.

 

[eye95]

No, you wouldn't. Yet the officers are in that very position.

And, the overwhelming evidence is that they reasonably believed that one of them was in mortal danger and, therefore, just like any other citizen would be, justified in using deadly force to stop the threat.

BTW, if you read the officers' testimony, you'll notice that they say they were "stopping the threat" and shooting at "center of mass." Any of that sound familiar? They reacted exactly how an OCer involved in a self-defense shooting would. We would be scrambling here to defend him.

 

[Gunslinger]

No, you wouldn't. Yet the officers are in that very position.

And, the overwhelming evidence is that they reasonably believed that one of them was in mortal danger and, therefore, just like any other citizen would be, justified in using deadly force to stop the threat.

BTW, if you read the officers' testimony, you'll notice that they say they were "stopping the threat" and shooting at "center of mass." Any of that sound familiar? They reacted exactly how an OCer involved in a self-defense shooting would. We would be scrambling here to defend him.

We will never agree on this situation. If the day ever comes that police are held to a higher standard--as they should be, in a fair and open system, I'll be less critical. They will know the consequences for their actions will be determined in an equitable fashion. That being said, subsequent court proceedings, state action for a wrongful death tort, or Federal under 18 USC 241 (or 42 USC 1983) will be the final abitrator. Let's see what happens.

 

[eye95]

We will never agree on this situation. If the day ever comes that police are held to a higher standard--as they should be, in a fair and open system, I'll be less critical. They will know the consequences for their actions will be determined in an equitable fashion. That being said, subsequent court proceedings, state action for a wrongful death tort, or Federal under 18 USC 241 (or 42 USC 1983) will be the final abitrator. Let's see what happens.

As far as the right to self-defense goes, police should be held to the same standard as citizens. I have little doubt that any other hearings into the matter will reach the same conclusion.

Reading the witness testimony with an open mind has to result in the conclusion that the officers (and almost everyone around them) reasonably believed that they were in mortal danger.

Anyway, my purpose in this thread is not to change the mind of anyone who entered it with the impression already in place that Scott was wrongfully shot. (I deliberately avoided passing judgment until I had read about the testimony.) My purpose was to encourage as many folks as possible to read the testimony before forming an opinion.

 

[farkles]

Apparently you don't really understand the effects of pain medication on a person who is in sever, chronic pain...

When a healthy person takes morphine or other narcotics, it effects them in a number of ways in addition to dulling their senses. It impairs judgement. It slows reflexes. It decreases cognition.

However, ost studies show that when someone is suffering from cronic, debilitating pain and they take a narcotic for pain management, almost none of these impairments manifest. For some reason, the brain seems to use all the medication to moderate pain perception, and almost none of it goes toward effecting higher-level neurological systems or functions.

I've seen this first hand with my grandfather and my mother, bot of whom where, in their final weels of life suffering from terribly debilitating pain, and were on HEEEYUGE doses of oxycodone--in my mother's case, her daily dosage was high enough that it would have killed me. But they both were relatively lucid, and could hold rational conversations, and had all their mental faculties about them.

In this victims case, I doubt the pain meds had anything at all to do with his actions. The physiology and pharmacology of serious pain mediation just don't support the claims of the police...

And BTW, where are all the voice recordings, and the Costco security cam videos? The security cam records seem to be conveniently "unrecoverable" in this incident.

No, this incident is not at all suspicious...

Sorry Dreamer but I have to part from you on this one. The security cam videos are absolutely present, they did now disappear. Look at the links provided above to the blogs, if you scroll through the pictures you see several times where someone is pointing at the costco video and it is in the courtroom covering the days events. All video evidence appears present. That guy made a terrible choice carrying while he was on pain meds at that intense of a level (you can also see pictures of how high the drugs were showing in his system), and trying to not follow cops instructions WHILE THEY HAVE DRAWN ON HIM.

Other than that, wish it didn't happen. Wish he would have made better choices, and wish the Costco employee hadn't tried to kick him out (assuming the only reason was for the gun, although sounds like he was pretty irrational besides that as well).

 

[rodbender]

read about the testimony

Do you have this phrase on a looped tape or something? I thought you were moving on.

 

[flagellum]

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.

Not quite. If it were a true role-reversal I think it might play our more like this.

A man is open carrying, his wife comes up to him and says that a man had done something.... tried to snag her purse, touched her butt, looked at her funny, etc.

So in response instead of talking to the man, the OC'er draws his weapon and confronts the man at gun point, not witnessing any of these supposed actions for himself. The OC'er starts SHOUTING at the individual(Who is likely started, scared, and shocked). The man in question happens to be a off-duty cop. The cop reaches for his waist, and the Open Carrier opens fire. Also, two CC'ers (friends of the OC'er)also draw thier weapons and throw extra rounds into the cops back as he collapses to the ground and has been effectively disabled.

Afterwards the shooting is evaluted by a panel of OC'ers, and the Cops have no ability to cross examine any of the witnesses or present evidence of thier own. The OC'ers also had siezed the suvielance camera of the nearby gas station, and after remaining in thier control they determined that there was no video on it. The OC'ers also "accidently" erase everything that was on the cop's blackberry. Durring the trail presented by the Open Carry community, they spend several months trying to dig up any possible dirt that they could about the police officer (no matter how irelevant) and present it in the inquest.

 

[Remmy]

Sorry Dreamer but I have to part from you on this one. The security cam videos are absolutely present, they did now disappear. Look at the links provided above to the blogs, if you scroll through the pictures you see several times where someone is pointing at the costco video and it is in the courtroom covering the days events. All video evidence appears present. That guy made a terrible choice carrying while he was on pain meds at that intense of a level (you can also see pictures of how high the drugs were showing in his system), and trying to not follow cops instructions WHILE THEY HAVE DRAWN ON HIM.

Other than that, wish it didn't happen. Wish he would have made better choices, and wish the Costco employee hadn't tried to kick him out (assuming the only reason was for the gun, although sounds like he was pretty irrational besides that as well).

You obviously have not read transcripts of the proceedings, read any of the reports throughout the time from July 10th till now, nor have you watched any of the live streamed inquest process. There was NO video of the incident, inside the store to collaborate Erik acting erratically or destroying merchandise, nor is there any footage of the actual deadly encounter. Fact of the matter is if you bothered to follow this story at all you would know Costcos cameras were down two days prior to the event and 5 hours after the incident a simple reboot of the system brought the cameras back to recording. There is also one camera that caught during the time of the incident a cop car showing up on scene and shoppers running. This was an external camera facing towards the parking lot of this store and not towards the entrance of the store where the shooting took place.

 

[Remmy]

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.

I have read and watched the entire proceedings with my own eyes as well as kept up with the actual event that happened from day one. So you can stop your mission to change the hearts and minds of individuals by spouting off read the testimony. You yourself have not read the actual transcripts but a blog report from a news outlet that does not cover the 8 + hours of testimony verbatim of witnesses on the stand during the inquest.

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.

Cross-examination would discount almost all of this testimony of witnesses making statements 2 weeks or more after the event. Sure the interested parties (family) was able to submit questions however the judge decided what questions he was going to read and which ones were not relevant to "these proceedings". The interested parties also could not submit their own experts. Also you cannot say anything about the amount of circumstantial evidence and hearsay that was allowed to be presented in the inquest as "fact" since this is a fact finding inquest and nothing more.

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.

I am sorry your under the delusion that one simply stating you cannot carry a weapon into a store is asking one to leave. There was also testimony by Metro officers that without expressly asking one to leave the place of business one is not trespassing. I say again Erik was NOT asked to leave. It is also fact that OCDO members have been advised by business here in Vegas "your not allowed to carry that gun in here" by businesses that corporate policy dictates they follow state law such as walmart or the basspro shops. I myself have had several conversations with corporate policy writers on these issues. Oh and heres for your education on nevada law as it states you must be told specifically to LEAVE.

NRS 207.200 Unlawful trespass upon land; warning against trespassing.
1. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary:
(a) Goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act; or
(b) Willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass,
Ê is guilty of a misdemeanor. The meaning of this subsection is not limited by subsections 2 and 4.
2. A sufficient warning against trespassing, within the meaning of this section, is given by any of the following methods:
(a) If the land is used for agricultural purposes or for herding or grazing livestock, by painting with fluorescent orange paint:
(1) Not less than 50 square inches of the exterior portion of a structure or natural object or the top 12 inches of the exterior portion of a post, whether made of wood, metal or other material, at:
(I) Intervals of such a distance as is necessary to ensure that at least one such structure, natural object or post would be within the direct line of sight of a person standing next to another such structure, natural object or post, but at intervals of not more than 1,000 feet; and
(II) Each corner of the land, upon or near the boundary; and
(2) Each side of all gates, cattle guards and openings that are designed to allow human ingress to the area;
(b) If the land is not used in the manner specified in paragraph (a), by painting with fluorescent orange paint not less than 50 square inches of the exterior portion of a structure or natural object or the top 12 inches of the exterior portion of a post, whether made of wood, metal or other material, at:
(1) Intervals of such a distance as is necessary to ensure that at least one such structure, natural object or post would be within the direct line of sight of a person standing next to another such structure, natural object or post, but at intervals of not more than 200 feet; and
(2) Each corner of the land, upon or near the boundary;
(c) Fencing the area; or
(d) By the owner or occupant of the land or building making an oral or written demand to any guest to vacate the land or building.
3. It is prima facie evidence of trespass for any person to be found on private or public property which is posted or fenced as provided in subsection 2 without lawful business with the owner or occupant of the property.
4. An entryman on land under the laws of the United States is an owner within the meaning of this section.
5. As used in this section:
(a) “Fence” means a barrier sufficient to indicate an intent to restrict the area to human ingress, including, but not limited to, a wall, hedge or chain link or wire mesh fence. The term does not include a barrier made of barbed wire.
(b) “Guest” means any person entertained or to whom hospitality is extended, including, but not limited to, any person who stays overnight. The term does not include a tenant as defined in NRS 118A.170.
[1911 C&P § 500; RL § 6765; NCL § 10447]—(NRS A 1969, 96; 1975, 1169; 1987, 2086; 1989, 997; 2005, 930; 2007, 981; 2009, 141)

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.

I pray you never find yourself in a role reversal and you shoot someone that made a "movement" and if you feel you would be justified in shooting someone this way start a retainer for a legal team that would rival OJ Simpson. Erik reaching is hearsay at best, without video to prove without a shadow of doubt. Its also not proven without a shadow of doubt he was not complying with commands to "drop it" the second command shouted at him within a 2 second time frame. Again, there were two seconds at first contact with Erik until the shots were fired at which point you would have to turn 180 degrees in a crowd, understand the commands are being given to YOU, with 30 other people standing all within the same proximity. Understand each command given and by the 911 recording that was played during the inquest the commands were "put your hands up, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground". Lets place you into a crowd of 30 people not knowing you are about to be the subject of police commands and see how well you perform in a 2 second time frame.

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.

Perhaps you should read the complete unabridged testimony yourself. And not the ramblings of a reporters blog. Last time I checked "I read it in a blog" will not protect you in court of law. Since after all your so convinced this was a "good shoot" and all the evidence without a shadow of doubt backs thats up.

There will NEVER be truth without a shadow of doubt in this case or any other case where video footage suddenly and mysteriously disappears.

Spend a hour or more researching using simple google searches in regards to Metro's use of force and you will be disgusted. 1 unjustified shooting since 1976 and only 1 in the all time history of this inquest process. sure its not biased or one sided at all. Read the inquest proceedings regarding Trevon Cole which was an inquest that recently just found the shooting justified. Read the articles that metro opens fire on "movement because the officer was startled" while taking a report down of a possible prowler and a homeowner. by the way the man shot at was NOT the prowler. Read the story in regards to an officer that was driving recklessly and was involved in a fatal accident and they charged the driver of the vehicle with DUI when blood tests came back they were NOT under the influence. Which brought a departmental rule that no officer is allowed to drive 10 miles over the speed limit.

Oh and for kickers read the story about our very own beloved Sheriff that was involved in a NASTY domestic dispute to the results of "video miraculously disappearing"

Am I slanted or to be so bold as to say only metro and Costco are to blame, everyone made huge mistakes. If in fact Erik did make any movement towards his waist to obey orders of "drop it" or to kill an officer that day has yet to be seen. I say again WHERE IS THE VIDEO. (thats rhetorical btw)

With all of this said, I'm done and will agree to disagree so sputter off more nonsense about drugs in the system, assumptions of being asked to leave but not really being asked to leave. Perhaps your mission to change the hearts and minds will succeed for a select few, for myself its a MUCH larger issue and bigger picture then ONE inquest.

Let me also restate so I don't get the auto response of read the testimony.

I have watched LIVE the actual footage of the inquest as well as read any of the testimony from transcripts that I missed which was a day and a half.

 

[eb31]

I have read and watched the entire proceedings with my own eyes as well as kept up with the actual event that happened from day one. So you can stop your mission to change the hearts and minds of individuals by spouting off read the testimony. You yourself have not read the actual transcripts but a blog report from a news outlet that does not cover the 8 + hours of testimony verbatim of witnesses on the stand during the inquest.



Cross-examination would discount almost all of this testimony of witnesses making statements 2 weeks or more after the event. Sure the interested parties (family) was able to submit questions however the judge decided what questions he was going to read and which ones were not relevant to "these proceedings". The interested parties also could not submit their own experts. Also you cannot say anything about the amount of circumstantial evidence and hearsay that was allowed to be presented in the inquest as "fact" since this is a fact finding inquest and nothing more.



I am sorry your under the delusion that one simply stating you cannot carry a weapon into a store is asking one to leave. There was also testimony by Metro officers that without expressly asking one to leave the place of business one is not trespassing. I say again Erik was NOT asked to leave. It is also fact that OCDO members have been advised by business here in Vegas "your not allowed to carry that gun in here" by businesses that corporate policy dictates they follow state law such as walmart or the basspro shops. I myself have had several conversations with corporate policy writers on these issues. Oh and heres for your education on nevada law as it states you must be told specifically to LEAVE.






I pray you never find yourself in a role reversal and you shoot someone that made a "movement" and if you feel you would be justified in shooting someone this way start a retainer for a legal team that would rival OJ Simpson. Erik reaching is hearsay at best, without video to prove without a shadow of doubt. Its also not proven without a shadow of doubt he was not complying with commands to "drop it" the second command shouted at him within a 2 second time frame. Again, there were two seconds at first contact with Erik until the shots were fired at which point you would have to turn 180 degrees in a crowd, understand the commands are being given to YOU, with 30 other people standing all within the same proximity. Understand each command given and by the 911 recording that was played during the inquest the commands were "put your hands up, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground". Lets place you into a crowd of 30 people not knowing you are about to be the subject of police commands and see how well you perform in a 2 second time frame.


Perhaps you should read the complete unabridged testimony yourself. And not the ramblings of a reporters blog. Last time I checked "I read it in a blog" will not protect you in court of law. Since after all your so convinced this was a "good shoot" and all the evidence without a shadow of doubt backs thats up.

There will NEVER be truth without a shadow of doubt in this case or any other case where video footage suddenly and mysteriously disappears.

Spend a hour or more researching using simple google searches in regards to Metro's use of force and you will be disgusted. 1 unjustified shooting since 1976 and only 1 in the all time history of this inquest process. sure its not biased or one sided at all. Read the inquest proceedings regarding Trevon Cole which was an inquest that recently just found the shooting justified. Read the articles that metro opens fire on "movement because the officer was startled" while taking a report down of a possible prowler and a homeowner. by the way the man shot at was NOT the prowler. Read the story in regards to an officer that was driving recklessly and was involved in a fatal accident and they charged the driver of the vehicle with DUI when blood tests came back they were NOT under the influence. Which brought a departmental rule that no officer is allowed to drive 10 miles over the speed limit.

Oh and for kickers read the story about our very own beloved Sheriff that was involved in a NASTY domestic dispute to the results of "video miraculously disappearing"

Am I slanted or to be so bold as to say only metro and Costco are to blame, everyone made huge mistakes. If in fact Erik did make any movement towards his waist to obey orders of "drop it" or to kill an officer that day has yet to be seen. I say again WHERE IS THE VIDEO. (thats rhetorical btw)

With all of this said, I'm done and will agree to disagree so sputter off more nonsense about drugs in the system, assumptions of being asked to leave but not really being asked to leave. Perhaps your mission to change the hearts and minds will succeed for a select few, for myself its a MUCH larger issue and bigger picture then ONE inquest.

Let me also restate so I don't get the auto response of read the testimony.

I have watched LIVE the actual footage of the inquest as well as read any of the testimony from transcripts that I missed which was a day and a half.

You sir, are getting a silent, envisioned, standing ovation.

Thank you!

 

[eye95]

I have read and watched the entire proceedings with my own eyes as well as kept up with the actual event that happened from day one. So you can stop your mission to change the hearts and minds of individuals by spouting off read the testimony. You yourself have not read the actual transcripts but a blog report from a news outlet that does not cover the 8 + hours of testimony verbatim of witnesses on the stand during the inquest.

You completely ignored the request to address the discrepancies in the reports of the testimony. Should we assume that they are accurate?

Cross-examination would discount almost all of this testimony of witnesses making statements 2 weeks or more after the event. Sure the interested parties (family) was able to submit questions however the judge decided what questions he was going to read and which ones were not relevant to "these proceedings". The interested parties also could not submit their own experts. Also you cannot say anything about the amount of circumstantial evidence and hearsay that was allowed to be presented in the inquest as "fact" since this is a fact finding inquest and nothing more.

Every question was read. Either it was asked, or it was read into the record. Questions that weren't asked generally weren't because they were duplicates of questions already asked. Can you identify relevant, non-duplicate questions that weren't asked?

I am sorry your under the delusion that one simply stating you cannot carry a weapon into a store is asking one to leave. There was also testimony by Metro officers that without expressly asking one to leave the place of business one is not trespassing. I say again Erik was NOT asked to leave. It is also fact that OCDO members have been advised by business here in Vegas "your not allowed to carry that gun in here" by businesses that corporate policy dictates they follow state law such as walmart or the basspro shops. I myself have had several conversations with corporate policy writers on these issues. Oh and heres for your education on nevada law as it states you must be told specifically to LEAVE.

I am sorry that you have to start what should be a rational argument with "I am sorry that." Telling someone that you can't have that here carries with it the obvious implication to take it out of here--unless one is whacked out on drugs.

I pray you never find yourself in a role reversal and you shoot someone that made a "movement" and if you feel you would be justified in shooting someone this way start a retainer for a legal team that would rival OJ Simpson. Erik reaching is hearsay at best, without video to prove without a shadow of doubt. Its also not proven without a shadow of doubt he was not complying with commands to "drop it" the second command shouted at him within a 2 second time frame. Again, there were two seconds at first contact with Erik until the shots were fired at which point you would have to turn 180 degrees in a crowd, understand the commands are being given to YOU, with 30 other people standing all within the same proximity. Understand each command given and by the 911 recording that was played during the inquest the commands were "put your hands up, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground". Lets place you into a crowd of 30 people not knowing you are about to be the subject of police commands and see how well you perform in a 2 second time frame.

Scott did not just "make a movement." Witness after witness said that Scott pointed his gun at the officer. As far as the officer knew, he was a trigger squeeze from being dead. If I have a gun pointed at me, I will pull my trigger.

Perhaps you should read the complete unabridged testimony yourself. And not the ramblings of a reporters blog. Last time I checked "I read it in a blog" will not protect you in court of law. Since after all your so convinced this was a "good shoot" and all the evidence without a shadow of doubt backs thats up.

Perhaps you should show us, as you were requested, where the reported testimony was inaccurate. Again, the LVS demonstrated a bias against the officers. We have no reason to believe that any inaccuracies in the reports of the testimony would favor the officers.

There will NEVER be truth without a shadow of doubt in this case or any other case where video footage suddenly and mysteriously disappears.

When you have as many witness as were called in this case, you get a pretty precise picture of what happened:

1. Scott was armed.
2. He was asked to leave. (Told he could not have a gun there, if you prefer.)
3. He was whacked out on drugs.
4. He did not follow the instructions of the officers.
5. He reached to where the officers were told he had a gun.
6. He pulled out that gun and pointed it at the officer.
7. The officers (and almost all of the witnesses) reasonably believed that the officer was in immediate grave danger.

Spend a hour or more researching using simple google searches in regards to Metro's use of force and you will be disgusted. 1 unjustified shooting since 1976 and only 1 in the all time history of this inquest process. sure its not biased or one sided at all. Read the inquest proceedings regarding Trevon Cole which was an inquest that recently just found the shooting justified. Read the articles that metro opens fire on "movement because the officer was startled" while taking a report down of a possible prowler and a homeowner. by the way the man shot at was NOT the prowler. Read the story in regards to an officer that was driving recklessly and was involved in a fatal accident and they charged the driver of the vehicle with DUI when blood tests came back they were NOT under the influence. Which brought a departmental rule that no officer is allowed to drive 10 miles over the speed limit.

Oh and for kickers read the story about our very own beloved Sheriff that was involved in a NASTY domestic dispute to the results of "video miraculously disappearing"

Am I slanted or to be so bold as to say only metro and Costco are to blame, everyone made huge mistakes. If in fact Erik did make any movement towards his waist to obey orders of "drop it" or to kill an officer that day has yet to be seen. I say again WHERE IS THE VIDEO. (thats rhetorical btw)

With all of this said, I'm done and will agree to disagree so sputter off more nonsense about drugs in the system, assumptions of being asked to leave but not really being asked to leave. Perhaps your mission to change the hearts and minds will succeed for a select few, for myself its a MUCH larger issue and bigger picture then ONE inquest.

Let me also restate so I don't get the auto response of read the testimony.

I have watched LIVE the actual footage of the inquest as well as read any of the testimony from transcripts that I missed which was a day and a half.

The response to read the reports of the testimony is directed at those who have not made up their minds and are truly wondering what happened, but who do not have si much loose time on their hands as to watch six days of testimony.

For them, here are the links:

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/

 

[donny]

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...

 

[eb31]

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...

And you dont think the inquest was completely biased, set up and predetermined before it began?

Then you sir are as naive and gullable as they come.

 

[swinokur]

They also say when you wrestle a pig you both get dirty, but the pig likes it.

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

I think it safe to say that this incident was mishandled at every step, and that there is not one person who was involved in this that doesn't share fault. Mr. Scott and the three officers, all the way down to the idiot that shouted "He's got a gun".

That said, this 'inquiry' process seems to be inherently flawed and I hope the other side of the story comes out in civil court. I want to know what happened to the other witnesses. I want to know what happened to the video. I don't know about Costco, but at Wal-Mart the cameras always work. There are people who get paid to make sure that we always have footage at the best angles available. Getting those tapes with anything less than a subpoena, on the other hand...

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.

 

[1245A Defender]

huh

it has often been said, "that you can indict a ham sandwich'
i find that absurd, but some think it is true,
because the process can be set up so that only the
crimes that a ham sandwich could be guilty of, are introduced.