Sentenced to Death for Shopping at COSTCO

[SaintJacque]

That is just factually inaccurate. Apart from specifying rights that government may not infringe, The Constitution is silent on municipal governments and municipal police forces. The Constitution's near-exclusive raison d'etre is to define the limitations of the federal government.

Furthermore, referring to police forces as "hit squads" qualifies, IMO, as cop-bashing and, if the owners agree with that assessment, is a violation of Rule 6.

Moving on.

The 14th amendment changed that.

 

[eye95]

The 14th amendment changed that.

The Constitution remained silent on municipalities and on what the poster antagonistically called "municipal hit squads." Supreme Court decisions many years after the 14th Amendment used it to extend to all governmental levels specific restrictions on infringements on specific rights.

There is no point in wasting any further time on this distraction.

 

[45acpForMe]

The blog is up for the fifth day. I have added it to the list of links. I encourage everyone to read all five. It will change your perspective.

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/

After reading through all the days of testimony I think:

1) Scott was on pain killers and not all there. Don't carry impaired!
2) People that testified that he drew on police are not gun people and mistook him pulling his holster out to hand to police wrongly.
3) Scott didn't follow orders enough (or at all) to reduce tension.
4) Being a licensed conceal carry person, and ex military he wrongly assumed he could handle the situation, since he was the good guy.
5) The police had a small amount of time to make a decision whether to shoot or not and chose the wrong one. They had some justification but could have handled it better.
6) Some people are just wacky (testimony) and should be discounted. The lady that shouted out "Oh my god he's got a gun!" right before they shot him probably contributed to the fatality.

Hearing more about his impaired behavior gives me more confidence that the police aren't totally running rampant killing citizens. I think the officers will be cleared just because he lifted the gun (holster and all) and didn't comply with their commands. For the most part it is just a DAMN shame.

Things could have been (should have been) different if:
1) Scott didn't carry while on medication that made him groggy!
2) Scott left when they said he couldn't have a gun in the store.
3) Costco didn't have such an ANTI policy.

 

[JoeSparky]

Again I will ask: Have you read anything from the four days of testimony? If you do, instead of relying on the rhetoric of others, you may gain a different perspective.

If you read about the testimony, you will find that a large number of eyewitnesses stated that he pulled a gun. They did not see a holstered gun. They saw a gun. They believed that Scott was pointing a gun at the officer. Clearly, the officer also thought Scott was pointing an unholstered gun at him.

Under the law (and, if you go armed, I hope you are aware of this), what you reasonably believe, not necessarily the truth of the circumstances, is what matters when you claim justification in a shooting. If you reasonably believe that you are in danger, you may defend yourself, whether or not you really were in danger.

Since so many eyewitnesses have testified that Scott pulled a gun, it would be reasonable for the officer to have seen it that way in the split-second he had to react.

Folks, once again, I implore you to read the summary of all the eyewitness testimony. In one of my above posts, I have provided four links to the daily reports of the testimony. It will change your perception. It changed mine.

Referencing the second and third paragraphs above..... I will have to agree with the poster. I don't like that someone MAY have been killed for attempting to obey 1 of several different conflicting orders but....

 

[Gunslinger]

Again I will ask: Have you read anything from the four days of testimony? If you do, instead of relying on the rhetoric of others, you may gain a different perspective.

If you read about the testimony, you will find that a large number of eyewitnesses stated that he pulled a gun. They did not see a holstered gun. They saw a gun. They believed that Scott was pointing a gun at the officer. Clearly, the officer also thought Scott was pointing an unholstered gun at him.

Under the law (and, if you go armed, I hope you are aware of this), what you reasonably believe, not necessarily the truth of the circumstances, is what matters when you claim justification in a shooting. If you reasonably believe that you are in danger, you may defend yourself, whether or not you really were in danger.

Since so many eyewitnesses have testified that Scott pulled a gun, it would be reasonable for the officer to have seen it that way in the split-second he had to react.

Folks, once again, I implore you to read the summary of all the eyewitness testimony. In one of my above posts, I have provided four links to the daily reports of the testimony. It will change your perception. It changed mine.

I used 'your' citation. And yes, I have read the contradictory so called "testimony" posted to date. The fact is he did not pull a weapon. And cops are held to a higher standard of awareness, if you will, or they shouldn't be allowed to carry a deadly weapon and have police powers. Also, the standard of "reasonable belief" is a sliding scale in the law. To use deadly force is at the extreme end.

 

[eye95]

I used 'your' citation. And yes, I have read the contradictory so called "testimony" posted to date. The fact is he did not pull a weapon. And cops are held to a higher standard of awareness, if you will, or they shouldn't be allowed to carry a deadly weapon and have police powers. Also, the standard of "reasonable belief" is a sliding scale in the law. To use deadly force is at the extreme end.

Thanks for reading up on the matter. I encourage all to read about the six days of testimony into the shooting. Despite some discrepancies, the testimony from dozens of eyewitnesses seems to be remarkably in agreement as to what happened.

While he technically did not "draw a gun," the overwhelming consensus of the testimony is that his actions looked to almost everyone as though he drew the gun. The officer, just like any other citizen, has the right to defend himself against what a reasonable person would believe is a deadly assault. Considering how many people swore under oath that Scott drew a gun and pointed it at the officer, it is safe to say that a "reasonable person" would have believed he had drawn a gun and was threatening the officer.

The sixth day is up, although there isn't much in the way of blog entries yet. Keep checking the link as the day progresses. Most of the testimony so far has been from ordinary citizens with no axe to grind. Today, several officers are expected to take the stand. One of the officers testified very early in the proceedings.

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

 

[jtrider]

Seems to be a matter of perspective. I have followed live audio and video of the Inquest proceedings. There at this point does not seem to be a preponderance of testimony to conclusively make a bet one way or another. The District Attorney has paraded witnesses that will paint whatever picture he wants painted. The District Attorney is in a position to influence any outcome simply by reviewing witness testimony and calling those that will support an outcome he desires. Imagine that.

One thing does stand out to me....if there had been a threat to any officer, it was ended with the first or second round fired. Nothing I have heard or seen can account for the five rounds Scott received in the back other than the speculation that they were fired for failure to comply. All witnesses state his hands were empty before he went to the ground. One shot entered his armpit, which indicates his hands / arms were up. One round entered his buttocks, traveled and stopped in his chest. He had to be down when that round was fired, long after the threat was ended.

All rounds fired once the threat was ended indicate what, an execution? This thought is enhanced by the testimony that other than rolling Scott over and cuffing him, no other attention was given him. No pulse check, no compression to wounds, nothing.

Bagged and tagged.

 

[eye95]

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

But, as I have been saying all along: Don't take my word for it. Read about the testimony for yourself. I am convinced that anyone who reads the about the testimony with an open mind will say, "Wow. There is a tremendous amount of consensus in the testimony and I have a CLEAR picture of what happened."

Here are the links to the blogs about the testimony.

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/

 

[Gunslinger]

Thanks for keeping up with the links. I will add that "preponderance" of the evidence is not a defining factor. To be sentenced to death in a court of law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a much higher standard than preponderance, which is normal in a civil, but not criminal, case.
Yes, I do agree a cop has the same rights to defend against what puts him in imminent fear of death or grievous bodily harm. And yes, it sounds like many of the witnesses are idiots who saw something that did not occur. Nobody knows what was in the mind of the cops who executed this man but them. With the usual whitewash expected, I hope they can live with it. Unfortunately, I'm sure they can. This happens far too often and I'm still waiting for a cop to admit what he did was wrong and he deeply regrets it instead of celebrating when he gets away with it.

 

[eye95]

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 matter before the coroner is whether the officers were justified in shooting. Should the shootings be determined to be unjustified (based on the testimony so far, I'd say one chance in a million), then the officers would have the presumption of innocence, and it would be incumbent on those who are prosecuting the officers to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty.

If anyone is being condemned without the presumption of innocence in this thread, it is the officers.

 

[eye95]

A couple of interesting things in today's blog:

Someone actually asked why the officers did not try to shoot the gun out of Scott's hand!

The matter may be put to the jury this afternoon.

 

[Recoil88]

That is a very sad and messed up story i hope some real justice is served and these cops spend the rest of their lives in prison for murder. But i think we all know that will not happen.

 

[eye95]

That is a very sad and messed up story i hope some real justice is served and these cops spend the rest of their lives in prison for murder. But i think we all know that will not happen.

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.

 

[eb31]

That is a very sad and messed up story i hope some real justice is served and these cops spend the rest of their lives in prison for murder. But i think we all know that will not happen.

Agreed. They should spend life in prison for murder. Sadly, they will get off and continue right where they left off.

 

[JoeSparky]

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.

maybe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[eye95]

If he had not been carrying under the influence, his behavior would not have been so strange as to attract attention that caused the gun to get noticed. So, he is not asked to leave, and the cops are not called. Scott would be alive.

If he had left when first asked, the cops would not have been called. And, even if they had been, he would have been long gone when they got there. Scott would be alive.

If he had followed the instructions of the officers and gotten down, leaving his gun where it was, he would've been handcuffed, and both of his guns would've been removed safely. Scott would be alive.

Scott's bad decisions, several of them, led to his shooting and his death.

 

[eye95]

The verdict is in. It will be announced any minute.

That was fast. The jury must have seen the case a cut-and-dried.

On edit: It came in while I was posting: Justified. All three officers.

 

[Dreamer]

If he had not been carrying under the influence, his behavior would not have been so strange as to attract attention that caused the gun to get noticed

Please stop spreading this slander.

There is a HUGE difference between "being under the influence" and having a legally prescribed pain med in your system to treat chronic debilitating pain from a serious injury.

Although the first may impair one's judgment and cognition, the second in most cases does not, and in fact ay actually HELP with judgment and cognition because mediating pain can often allow a person to focus on their daily life, rather than be constantly battling against debilitating pain.

Serious chronic pain can cloud judgment and cognition as much (or even more) than many drugs can.

Pain management doesn't mean a person is drugged out of his mind--even if the doses are seen as "high", and the way that narcotics effect the mind, cognition, and judgment vary widely from person to person, and from pain level to pain level...

 

[HeroHog]

Please stop spreading this slander.

There is a HUGE difference between "being under the influence" and having a legally prescribed pain med in your system to treat chronic debilitating pain from a serious injury.

Although the first may impair one's judgment and cognition, the second in most cases does not, and in fact ay actually HELP with judgment and cognition because mediating pain can often allow a person to focus on their daily life, rather than be constantly battling against debilitating pain.

Serious chronic pain can cloud judgment and cognition as much (or even more) than many drugs can.

Pain management doesn't mean a person is drugged out of his mind, even if the doses are seen as "high", and the way that narcotics effect the mind, cognition, and judgment vary widely from person to person, and from pain level to pain level...

AMEN! I am there. I do admit that I am as not as sharp as I was before pain made a major enterance into my life and that my concentration is diminished but it was that way before pain management strictly due to the pain. Pain management allowed me to keep my job as a Sr. Programmer/Analyst for a multi-hundreds of millions of dollars a year company until the pain became so great I simply could no longer work.

If I do too much and cause my pain to increase to where I have to take meds for "breakthrough pain," I stop carrying and driving because THEN I am truly impaired. When I am on maintenance or baseline meds alone, I still posses good reflexes, practice good judgment and act appropriately. When I have to take more, I still act appropriately but know my reflexes and wits are not up to normal capacity and react accordingly. My doctor has scolded for letting myself suffer rather than take the amounts I am allowed because I know the effects and am VERY careful in my actions to do what is SAFE for all, not just so I "can feel better." Fact is, I hate being "high" or "stoned" and avoid it by not drinking to excess (pretty much AT ALL these days) and not taking more drugs than prescribed and or JUST enough to make the pain manageable.

 

[Remmy]

I will also add that linking everyone to media spin stories is not reading testimony go get the transcripts of what exactly was said or get the archive video footage of the entire process then come talk to me. This entire process is a circus and needs to be changed. Circumstantial and hearsay is NOT FACT!

The testimony from over half of "eye witnesses" came weeks after the incident and they were told on scene to "get in their cars and leave"

Then you have the video system of Costco a multi billion dollar national corporation. and well Im just tired of typing it all so this was the story.

This is what metro has said from start to inquest about the video.

1st theres a problem with the hard drive
2nd theres a glitch that video is corrupted
3rd the video files are unusable
4th the cameras were NOT recording
5th a simple reboot of the system 3 to 5 hours after the shooting resolved the issue causing the cameras not to be "working"
6th there was video footage of a external camera facing the parking lot away from the store that was recording and showed police cars pulling up and customers running

The inquest showed the DA leading the witness testimony as well as officers

No cross examination

Hearsay allowed

Circumstansial evedence allowed

the Dead man's past back 10 years was brought up and unsealed records from domestic cases from his past 10 years ago unsealed prior to the inquest.

a neighbor testifies on the stand that Scott pulled a gun on his dog. yet it was not brought up the details involving the senior officers deadly shooting prior to this?(how is this relevant?)

The presiding Judge read what he deemed pertinent questions from interested parties (the family) and threw out anything he felt was not.

The complete history of the inquest process there has only be ONE officer involved shooting that was ruled to be unjustified. For the record that was in 1976

Officers are not tested for substance abuse after ANY shooting

And your telling me the inquest is not one sided? Enjoy your cool-aid

Edit: almost forgot the Sheriff has gone on public record and stated he will not allow nor does he want third parties investigations of his officers or his department performed.