Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By Jackie Valley (contact) 
Published Tuesday, July 27, 2010 | 4:16 p.m.
Updated Tuesday, July 27, 2010 | 5:19 p.m.
Erik Scott memorial
Sun archives
A coroner's inquest in the fatal Metro Police shooting of a man at a Summerlin Costco store has been postponed, but a new date has not yet been set, according to the Clark County Coroner's Office.
The original coroner's inquest was scheduled for Sept. 3.
Coroner Mike Murphy said the Clark County District Attorney's office asked for the postponement, so the inquest has been put on hold.
"It's not a question of if it's going to be conducted, but when," Murphy said.
Clark County District Attorney David Roger said his office asked for the postponement because it needed more time for investigation — reading witness statements, identifying witnesses for the inquest and reading other reports. Plus, the original Sept. 3 date posed a problem.
Roger said it likely will take two days for all the evidence to be presented to the inquest jury, and Sept. 3 is the Friday before Labor Day — an infeasible date for a two-day inquest.
Erik Scott, 38, was killed July 10 after authorities say he pointed a gun at an officer, prompting three officers to shoot him.
Authorities said a Costco employee called 911 to report a man acting erratically in the store, damaging merchandise and carrying a pistol in his waistband. An officer approached the man, identified as Scott, then noticed the pistol and gave him verbal commands to lay on the ground, police said.
After Scott pointed the pistol at an officer, the officers fired at him, striking him multiple times, police said. He died at University Medical Center a short time later.
The officers who fired their weapons were placed on paid administrative leave during the investigation, which is standard procedure in officer-involved shootings.
A lawyer representing Scott's family has denied Metro's version of events, arguing that Scott, a West Point graduate with a concealed weapon permit, never pulled out a handgun and pointed it at police.
Police identified the three officers involved in the shooting as Officer William Mosher, 38, who has been with the department since June 2005; Officer Joshua Stark, 28, with the department since September 2008; and Officer Thomas Mendiola, 23, with the department since March 2009.
as if this couldn't be any more shady
Hmmm...
testilying takes time, hurry up and destroy those tapes.
I was willing to maybe give the police some benefit of the doubt, as many bloggers have asked us to do. I'd now like to be convinced as to why I should do that.
This stinks to high heaven.
So much for the gun-nut argument that everybody should pack a pistol to ensure a "safer society" . . . . .
D.A. Rogers is a shill!
again... where are the security Cameras?
No matter what happens the conspiracy theorists will never rest. They already have their minds made up.
lv1:
Your the same idiot that does nothing but blindly support these thugs....are you a cop or security at T.I.
This is horrible, theres a murdered man here and all Metro can worry about is not being held responsible and image.
News flash....your image is on the same level as Bloods and Crips at this point.
Where can we send donations to keep the billboard up?
This is absolutely horrible....whay hasn't this made national news. Its what needs to happen before these murdering thugs are forced to stop this madness.
The police really need to get used to armed citizens... and stop covering their tracks. If they'd just admit to a wrongdoing it would build a lot more public faith in their institution than all this shady activity. One does have to wonder...
If a man points a gun at officers, sorry people, he/she will be met with deadly force. Why did this man point his weapon at police? We dont't know yet. There are numerous witnesses who witnessed Scott point his firearm towards the officers.
Whoa! It takes time to manufacture non existent video recordings and to re-interview (read as intimidate) witnesses. The DA knows it couldn't be done by the original September 3 date (that's the Friday before Labor Day when the lawyers want to start vacations), so he HAD to request a postponement.
Now the officers involved can have an extended paid vacation.
Funny that the request was granted by Coroner Murphy when it didn't have to be. More of the 'good old boy' network at work?
I'm glad the DA's office is going to take the time to investigate a little more closely and thought it was premature for the inquest to be scheduled before the Costco tapes could even be viewed. This case was never as "cut and dried" as the initial Metro PD reports wanted everyone to believe.
And not for nothing, it was just reported that the CEO of Costco just sold off a large amount of Costco stock...
Conspiracy theorists typically have huge gaps in their logic filled with conjecture. This seems to be a bit more simple than that. Did he or did he not portray a reasonable threat that met the departments guidelines for deadly force? Video tapes and eyewitness accounts are generally more than enough when a non-law enforcement person is on trial.
I was on a jury for a burglary charge where the dude hoped to get off on a technicality. The prosecution made it simple. They had a witness that said 'Yes' I saw him leave the house with a TV in his hands. Done.
Postponing just seems like a delay tactic. If it was a good shoot just come out with the facts and let's be done with it. If not, delay is just going to hurt LVMPD credibility well beyond any civil suit.
vegaswho - and their are far more witnesses who say he didnt point a gun at them. all these witnesses have actually been interviewed by local news agencies... why havent any of the witnesses that say he had a gun come forward and give an interview??? or is metro making up that they have witnesses backing them up??? maybe this time nobody was willing to lie about this in court like many other times.
SusanKH - what billboard and where is it???
Some of you watch too many movies. This is the 21 century. There are no cover-ups and protection with cases of this magnitude. Stop assuming so much and wait for the Coroners Inquest. I haven't seen one witness do a public interview stating they did not see Scott point a firearm at officers.
@SusanKH, they put up a website at www.erikbscott.com
@vegaswho, check out the 7/12 LRVJ or just Google "Erik Scott Costco Amesbury" to get some of the eyewitness stories that contradict the Metro version
Only three witnesses claiming they did not see Scott brandish a firearm. One did say he heard the cop yelling to drop it! If Scott did not have a firearm in his hand they would not have been yelling drop it. Wait until the coroners inquest to hear other witnesses side of what transpired
@vegaswho, "Some of you watch too many movies. This is the 21 century. There are no cover-ups and protection with cases of this magnitude."
While you're at it, you may want to Google "New Orleans Police Cover Up". A total of 11 NOPD officers were charged a couple of weeks ago by DOJ with murdering two civilians and attempting to cover it up. It is rare, but it can and does happen. Particularly in departments with command climates that don't reinforce ethical behavior or lack checks and balances.
Quite frankly, it wouldn't shock me if one of the reasons for the delay is because DOJ is either getting involved or the DA thinks there is a strong chance they might in the future.
Las Vegas Metro is an Accredited Law Enforcement agency. It is not an easy task for an agency to get accredited. You can't comapre New Orleans to Metro. Some of you out there might dislike the police and not trust them, but Metro is an outstanding agency and has been accredited for over a decade. Metro is doing things right, whether you think they are or not.
What's taking so long?
The cops were clearly just doing their job, right?
Let's get this cover-up finished, still lots more cop shootings to sweep up. Let's get moving on this.
All shootings involving police should be investigated by the FBI. The public would be better served. There is always a cloud over the Police Dept and that isn't fair to them. If the coroner's jury finds a shooting as justified it doesn't always set well with the public. Erase all doubt that it is a local whitewash and get the Fed involved. The perception of fairness to all concerned is important.
Sweeping it under the carpet is taking longer than expected, so the bastardized version of justice served up in Las Vegas will be postponed indefinitely.
The tapes should prove with out a doubt what happened or at least shed some light on the issue. Something doesn't seem correct with justifiably killing someone who points a gun at cops and then there is this big dust-up. Why so many different versions of the same event, why shoot someone in broad daylight in a heavily trafficked area? Seems the cops should probably have thought a little harder before killing another human being in broad daylight with so many witnesses.
Steve7952 was right: this stinks to high heaven.
This should surprise no one.
Vegas who... lemme guess you are one of the Metro Pigs.
Accredited or not they are a corrupt violent group of individuals with no concern for individuals civil liberties.
They actively violate peoples liberties repeatedly. killing them is simply the most extreme example.
JSin
I would also like to give the police officers involved in this latest killing the benefit of the doubt until the coroner's inquest; but in the sixteen years I've lived here I have seen these inquests become a cynical sham and an affront to justice. So, now, in addition to Eric Scott the LVMPD has killed Trevon Cole unarmed drug suspect kneeling in his bathroom who made a "furtive movement" and was subsequently shot in the face with a rifle. Officer Bryan Yant lied under oath to obtain the search warrant for Cole's apartment. They also shot in the back and killed an unarmed and handcuffed suspect as he attempted to escape. The LVMPD also shot in the back an unarmed man whose only crime was bouncing a basketball down the street and being deaf.
This stinks to high heaven!
Don't know why they should be concerned about delivering the news; white people don't riot when one of their own gets gunned down.
Metro, RIGHT NOW knows what the whole story is.
Guaranteed.
Now, it's a matter of "how to proceed";
Get it right, gang.
A lot of reputations depend on it.
Just this week metro agreed to pay Darling $120,000 in a settlement. Darling was not hurt or killed, unlawfully arrested, yes, and smeared by metro, sure, but no loss of life or limb.
How much do you think "Officer" Yant is going to cost the taxpayers? He killed a young man with a kid yet to be born. That settlement is going to be to the mother and baby for life. But then, just to show their force (farce) metro goes to the soon to be young mothers house and harasses the pregnant woman.
I think the night the "inquest" justifies that manslaughter is going to be interesting, might be a good night to stay away from the windows?
Who is really surprised that it was postponed? Not me! They know they were in the wrong just as they knew when they arrested Mr. Calvin for drunk driving and hit and killed an officer. Please, they are trying to get it in their favor anyway they can because of the public outrage over this. It's been time to clean up Metro, and maybe, just maybe this could be the next unjustified killing by Metro in over 30 years! I won't hold my breath though.
Seems to me they only want to pull the witnesses that agree that he pulled a gun and not the people that said he didn't. It's just giving them time, as I said, to get the inquest in their favor and make it look justifiable. Whatever! Metro does NO wrong!
I would love to see these officers pay for their crime of murder, maybe it would cause an investigation and a few of the other trigger happy cops to slow the pull. Again, not holding my breath.
Also SOOOO close to election time too...humm who is worried about their elected seats?
Roger...Needs to get voted out ASAP!! Right or wrong the truth has a better chance of coming out.
Where is the FBI???
RE: LVMPD.
The inquest will resume after the sheriff wins the election.
The current findings might cost him a seat.
f9594s...
has offered up a piece of the puzzle.
You people who are pretending to be a jury finding the police guilty based on "evidence" in the news media are laughable.
Im confused...did he cops postpone the Inquest or the DA?
Metro is screwed and they know it. They probably will be able to bluff this thing past the joke of an Inquest, but when it comes time for the civil suit, you are talking about a multi-million dollar settlement.
full_deck is exactly right
New TV show--Vegas 5-0
Cover em up Dano......
I hope that Bill Scott pursues legal repercussions as well as civil. The DOJ needs to get involved because you know Metro will make up their own story. See officer Manor death if you refute my claim.
Any wagers on whether or not those store surveillance videos ever surface? Maybe I'm just cynical, but you know those tapes would be provided to the media if they showed he was acting "bizarrely" and "pointed a firearm at officers".
What will happen is we the tax-payers will pay out a huge civil award, with no punishment for the officers involved.
God save us from the largest gang in Las Vegas, Metro PD.
use your heads for more than a hat rack, morons...
who do the security cameras belong to? Costco
who installed them? Costco or someone they hired
who's responsible for their maintenance? Costco
who's decides the areas that the camera is pointed at or not pointed at? Costco
who's responsible to make sure the cameras are operational? Costco
are you starting to see a pattern?
perhaps someone might want to ask Costco why no one can see anything on the tape?
thank god the guy was white or we would never take the time to know the truth.
What local television channel will be airing the corners inquest?
FWIW:
Clark County Coroner Mike Murphy started his law enforcement profession in Kansas City in 1972 -- came to Nevada in 1980 continuing his law enforcement career; graduated of the FBI National Academy with a doctorate in business administration and was appointed the position of Clark County Coroner 08/26/2002.
The Coroner's Inquest is a quasi-judicial process run by a Special Master, not a judge. The evidence is presented by the DA. The only questions that are allowed are those from the DA and the ones that the Special Master allows. The victim and their family are NOT ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS OR EVEN PARTICIPATE in the process. I doubt if they are even allowed to view any evidence before the process begins. Any questions from the victim and their family have to be submitted to the Special Master. This system was not set up by Metro, but was set up by the County Commission based upon recommendations from the DA, Metro and the Police Officers Association.
Ref's:
http://forum.scubatoys.com/las-vegas-div...
http://www.lvrj.com/news/affidavit-error...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...
The city has lost confidence in the police. If they would just show the tapes, but they won't even do that. In a supposedly open society that should be the first thing that happens. I wonder if there are statistics that compare homicides by police in various cities. I would be willing to bet that Metro tops the list.
JSin~~ you sound like example of the many fine indviduals who are being "harrassed" in West Vegas. Such a fine man like Wendall Williams leading the charge.. ha ha.
E-Thugs, cause talking $hit in person is dangerous..ha ha ha
This gives Metro enough time to alter any surveillance video from Costco.
Seems like they are about to do the same thing with Gibbons' parking garage tape over his tryst with the cocktail waitress from Wynn.
Rogich involved again?
Regardless of what actually happened at Costco, this case has no chance of being examined fairly. Absolutely none. That's just the sad truth I'm afraid.
No surprise. They'll postpone it until after the election - probably set it for November 3 and hope all the election coverage will divert attention from the inquest.
And they're probably right.
Inmemoryoferikscott.org
Send metro a message and vote Gillespie out. he is a elected official, and Metro is suppose to protect the public, NOT ONE OF THEIR OWN. Some how I have noticed that in Vegas, public workers especially police and Firefighters seem to have this concept the other way around.
Hell with the DOJ write and call Harry Reid make him demonstrate some leadership in making the feds look into this. Face it most of us have no cash to py off the Judge and inspectors as well as the pigs. Harry has clout. Maybe he can get the DOJ to review it
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm...
JSin
Welcome to the age of: GESTAPO 911.
Remember on the Monday after the shooting how Metro came out and said its' investigation showed ALL of the witnesses interviewed backed Metro's version of events? Remember how Metro said they didn't know of any contradicting eyewitnesses? Does anyone else get the impression Metro wasn't quite telling us the truth?
One thing is very obvious: this case was not as "cut and dried" as Metro wanted everyone to believe.
The coroner's inquest system is a joke. I recall Metro shooting a young, black, HAND CUFFED kid in the back and this rubber stamp group found that execution justified.
Now you have a white, educated man shot and killed in Summerlin (of all places) and the system does not know how to deal with this. If it was another black or hispanic, it would be almost automatic.
As usual, if you want factual information as to why the Inquest was delayed, you need to go to LVRJ:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/witness-list-de...
So they shot Scott once in the shoulder and once in the chest, and another five times in the back while on the ground. Let's here it for our brave Metro.
They shot Scott FIVE times in the back while on the ground!?!?! If this is true--and it's tough to cover up or dispute gunshot wounds--then the Metro cops involved need to go to jail.
I honestly can't conceive of 3 officers shooting a man 5 times in the back while on the ground. I hope that is just embellishment on Goodman's part.
> You can't comapre [sic] New Orleans to Metro.
why's that -- they perform the same basic tasks --- and BOTH are accredited.
http://topics.nola.com/tag/danziger-brid...
Gillespie --- you're a piece of work. Get your boys under control.
And so you know there's some out here that know one of your guys killed a kid in a high speed pursuit earlier this year. That one went away because the person wasn't as upstanding as Scott --- but you killed that kid just like you killed Scott.
> Let's here it for our brave Metro.
brave men don't shoot people in the back.
@vegaswho:You said, "Las Vegas Metro is an Accredited Law Enforcement agency. It is not an easy task for an agency to get accredited. You can't comapre New Orleans to Metro."
The New Orleans Police Department was accredited in 2001. It didn't stop 11 officers from killing two civilians and attempting to cover it up. The smart officers pled guilty and got reduced sentences.
I remember watching the Cororner's inquest for the shooting of the "ice cream lady" by the Henderson police. I thought it was a blatantly biased process based on how different witnesses were treated.
Each witness from the general public was grilled as to whether they had discussed the case with any other witnesses or the media. While each Henderson police officer was not asked the same questions only leading me to believe that it was already known that the Henderson police officers had already coordinated their testimony.
I guess between the County DA's office and Metro more time is needed to coordinate their testimony.
David Rogers need to be replaced. So does Gillespie, unless he is willing to man up and do the right thing. If not, he has to go.
There is a huge problem in the way the system works in Nevada. Everything on a case is filtered thru the DA's office, which gives the DA's the ability to hide evidence from the defendant, which in turn creates wrongful convictions which in turn creates huge monetary civil liabilities that we the taxpayers end up paying.
There is a law waiting to be presented to the 2011 Legislature called "Nolan's law" that would require that all information be disseminated to both the DA and the Defendant. I would urge you to contact your legislator and ask them to vote yes on Nolan's law.
For the record, Nolan Klein was convicted and died in prison of medical neglect, his sister, Tonja Brown found evidence that was withheld by the DA's office that showed he didn't commit the crime. Justice is a slow process and Nolan died before he had his day in court.
His sister is still working to clear his name by presenting the evidence that was withheld to the court, and asking the court to sanction the DA (Dick Gammick) that withheld the evidence.
For those of you who think we have such a great system with checks and balances, think again. That's the way it is designed but that isn't the way it is implemented.
Remember Nolan's law and give the defendant a fair shake in court this upcoming legislature.
From the LVRJ
"Roger said Las Vegas police haven't submitted to his office the appropriate paperwork, including witness statements, needed to subpoena those who saw the July 10 shooting of 38-year-old Erik Scott. The inquest had been set for Sept. 3; no new date has been set."
It would seem apparent that the Police Department currently has the sole responsibility to investigate and parse all the information relative to Police Use of Force killings. It also appears that the Police then give only what it wants to support its case to the DA? It is now no wonder to me that no police officer has ever been found negligent of anything as the police department holds all the cards of this game. Who came up with the system that forgot the necessity of making certain that any homicide investigation be independent of the organization that is being investigated?
Also
I find it sickening that the police apologists who continue to post to this site see nothing wrong with a police officer gunning down another person, with a shoot first and ask questions later mind-set. The police need to learn that their badge is not a license to kill (murder) at will. The police are not judge, jury and executioner. The police are to bring people to justice, alive and well, not dead.
"Goodman said 15 witnesses, including doctors and lawyers who were within five feet of the shooting, have said "unequivocally" that not only was Scott not pointing a gun, he was no threat and had no time to react to multiple police commands before he was shot.
Goodman said Scott was shot seven times, including once in the chest, once in the shoulder, and five times in the back while he was on the ground."
Quoted from: http://www.lvrj.com/news/witness-list-de...
--------------------
If this were you or me, we would be looking at the death penalty! Being as that it's Metro, they get paid leave while they find a way to make it so they can come back to work and Mosher can kill for a third time! UNREAL!
Most cops go their entire career and never fire a shot, this man has been on the force 5 years and has killed two people. Is there not something wrong with that?
lemahj - I find it sickening that anyone would rush to judgement, be it in support or against Metro.
The only things we know is what the media has told us, and the media doesn't always get it right.
I don't know what the facts are, but one thing Metro has said and some of the media witnesses have said is there was a gun involved, at a minimum it was in his hand.
Let me ask you this. If you were coming to look for me, and I appeared and pulled a gun, would you be scared and in fear that I might use it on you?
> Let me ask you this. If you were coming to look for me, and I appeared and pulled a gun, would you be scared and in fear that I might use it on you?
But the police are paid professionals --- they should be in control of the situation, not reacting to it. Added in that they're shooting in close confines with innocents around the whole thing is unbelievable.
why don't you expect your police department to at least act professional?
http://tinyurl.com/2dxekq7
Then I suggest that you keep on laughing until someone decides to remedy the current situation with what Sharron Angle refers to as a Second Amendment solution.
Roger seemed licked a real prick when interviewed by the news last night.
channel 3 " is there a cover up"
DR " no"
well thanks, very re-assuring.
edit - roger seemed like a real prick -
Hola Voice of Reason...these two statements of your are inconsistent...
"I find it sickening that anyone would rush to judgement..."
"...a gun involved, at a minimum it was in his hand"
...methinks you have rushed to judgement here...still sick?...if there was a gun in Mr. Scott's hand, then the Coroner's inquest would be rather matter-of-fact, doncha think?...reasonable, Voice dude?...seems to me that whether or not Mr. Scott had a gun in his hands is the most questionable fact to be determined...
@full_deck and MSH1
"You people who are pretending to be a jury finding the police guilty based on "evidence" in the news media are laughable."
And you are pretending to be a jury in finding the police not guilty based on 'evidence' reported by police officers who may be charged with murder. Ok?
Help me out here with your engaging unbiased critical analysis.
Laughable? Sorry, try again.
Do you even stop and think things through before you type such nonsense?
Two very questionable shootings back to back-
Anyone want to bet Roger and Gillespie are trying to figure out who gets to take the fall for at least one of these? I could see Roger going after Yant in the Cole shooting and getting a nearly unheard of unjustified/ unexcused finding, and subsequently filing charges while looking ahead to getting an excused finding in the Scott incident. It's no big secret that Yant isn't the most popular guy at Metro. Roger gets him to plead to manslaughter 2, he gets two years, serves 6 months, career as LEO finished. And if they throw the public a black victim, Roger and Gillespie would be hoping it placates the outrage and justifies the inquest process for the foreseeable future while preserving the careers of three other officers. They could swat Cole's family with $1-2M, another $1-2M for Scott's, cases closed, move on, inquests still SOP.
Anyone notice Metro driving a lot slower the last few weeks, being careful at the red lights and stop signs, or is it just me? The last thing Gillespie (and Roger) need is an officer-involved, fatal MVA.
Not sayin' here, just supposin'...
@VoiceofReason, there hasn't been any proof provided that Scott had a gun in his hand. Metro claims that he had a gun in his hand and pointed it at officers. Not a single eyewitness claims to have seen Scott point the gun at officers. The discrepancy among eyewitnesses is whether Scott had a gun in his hand as he was attempting to disarm, whether he was lifting up his shirt to show the officers the location of his weapon and never had a weapon in his hands, what orders were given by police, etc. Some people claim the weapon was still in his waistband when he fell and was taken off him after he was dead. Either way, we know the gun was still in its' zippered holster when it was recovered.
Officer Mosher, you're from Holliston, Mass., right? Is this guy one of your relatives--
Holliston resident picked up on warrants
MILFORD - A Holliston man was arrested Friday on Main Street at 3:34 a.m., police said.
Matthew Mosher, 35, of 291 Mill St., was arrested on three out-of-town warrants, police said.
Only a coward would shoot someone in the back, and only an idiot coward would have to do it 5 times!!!!! Gillespie AND Rogers MUST go. I have already cancelled my membership with Costco, please do the same, let's send them a clear message. This was murder. Rest in Peace Erik Scott.
Dragon:
If killing a handcuffed kid by shooting him in the back b/c he is running away was determined to be justified at the Coroner's Inquest, what makes you think these recent killings will be anything but "justified?"
Maybe the thing for people to do is ask the candidates for the upcoming election if they think the Coroner's Inquest system should be changed and how they intend to change it? Now there's a novel idea, huh?
Welcome to the age of GESTAPO 911.
I am a fan of Metro,but this does not look good.I can not believe this man pointed a gun at the police.
The video hard drive was sent to California for forensic analysis? How does that make any sense?
Since shayne7 is probably monitoring this waiting for a comeback.. I'll go ahead and make his day.
I am neither a cop nor any kind of security anywhere.. although it's interesting you would place me specifically at T.I. You must have had a run in there and hold a grudge.
I don't "blindly" support anyone. I am upfront and open about it. I have friends and family in law enforcement, and I know the bs they deal with on a daily basis. But I also know there are bad officers who have themselves committed crimes and caused harm to others, but I choose to not crucify the whole department for the actions of a few.
I know that if someone pulls a gun and points it towards my family member, I would rather they come home than the person who chose to put them in that position.
This is a horrible tragedy and I do sympathize with the family and know they are dealing with a great deal of pain.
So how dare you portray me as some insensitive monster who thinks along the lines of the Bloods and Crips. My thinking is no where near on the level of gang-banging criminals who murder innocent people everyday. But because you don't hear about it you will take the easy target.
I just choose to believe that a series of events led all involved to where we are today.. and until those events are thoroughly investigated I will not place blame on either side so quickly, as you have chosen to do.
I know that you and I will just have to agree to disagree because you already have your mind made up...
you obviously believe every detail that the media provides is fact..
and will never change your mindset that all of Metro is a bunch of crooked murdering thugs. So be it.
lv1:
OK, good intellligent answer, and the TI thing was a shot at humor. They were robbed Monday night. I grew up in NYC where crime is just as rampant if not more than here, but you hear nothing along the lines of this sort of violence. What steams me to no end is the way there is never any culability. Everything they do is justified? Maybe not always intentional but not justified. Theres just too many questionable acts that happen in this city that, although some may appear shady they can't all be justified. I will apoligize for some of my insults but it just angers me that Metro can do as they wish. I have personally watched them race past me to get to Starbucks, watched them harass people for no reason and been threatened when I asked why they had to speed past me so fast just to get to the gas station. This is in Summerlin and I am no criminal.
This is a problem and it doesn't happen everywhere.
This whole Scott thing stinks to high hell and very few will disagree. He was a good man it seems that did a dumb thing (really you need a pistol to go to Costco...just asking for trouble) He certainly didn't deserve to die for it...and as far as pointing it at 3 armed policemen, well come on I have to really struggle to believe that. Besides, Metro has lied to us in the past...even you have to admit that.
If this was an isolated incident that would be something else but where theres smoke theres fire. I don't for one second think that any of the recent killings were done for precarious reasons but comitted due to lack of training, experience and lack of reprocussions for anything they ever do.
James Manor could have killed that poor guy if he hadn't been riding in one of those silly monster trucks. And had Manor survived he'd be cruising our streets today, never the worse off.
BTW, my dad is a cop, my uncle and 2 cousins are state troopers, and I have three freinds on Metro that piss me off when they tell me some of the things they do to people they confrontand can pretty not be arrested for drunk driving...as I've been told.
I think it's time we separate these scared little people we give badges and guns to, from the real policemen that do a professional job.
Anyone can become a cop, but not everyone can be a West Point graduate. These three yahoo cowboy cops were not worthy to even polish the shoes of Eric Scott, let alone murder him.
Right now I have faith in the good officers of metro, but they really need to flush the toilet and get rid of all these tu@ds that don't belong in metro.
There's been too many murders, too many shooting in the backs, weather it be furtive movements or running away in handcuffs....
Weed these yahoo cowboys out sheriff!
@SummerlinCC, there also hasn't been proof that Scott didn't have a gun in his hand. Both Metro and witnesses the LVRJ has interviewed have said Scott DID have a gun in his hand, although only Metro to this point claims it was pointed at an officer.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/witness-list-de...
Quite frankly, whether it was pointed at them or not isn't going to be the deciding factor, IMO. If Scott came out of the store with a gun in his waist band, and was as well trained in firearms as some suggest, he would have known better than to lift his shirt to show the gun or to try and disarm himself. Once he put his hand on the gun he became a threat to not only the officers safety, but the safety of the general public that was still in the area.
Let's play a "what if" game here. What if Metro hadn't neutralized the threat and Scott shot 1 or more customers of the store. Then everybody would be up in arms that Metro was there and didn't do their job. Either way, Metro couldn't win.
My thought are this, in a city like NY or other large cities with plenty of crime you have a much larger pool of educated and professional people to choose from. People from families that have been police for generations. In this town you have a much scarcer group of individuals to choose from in addition to the fact that with no education you can park cars and make 80K per year. In other cities no education = minimum wage.
Approach an officer in this town and I would say half the time you will get looked down upon and the officer will show complete indifference towards you. Try it if you don't believe me.
Also, with the population rapidly shrinking, why is Metro continuing to hire more officers?
Does anyone else find it unsettling that one of the officers involved was also involved with a previous shooting.
Someone has been watching that dirty harry movie when the police were killing people that they deemed unfit. What was the name of that movie.
Ronster, "thank god the guy was white or we would never take the time to know the truth"
So true, I'm guessing a Muhammad Maliki would be long forgotten by now.
@Cognastics-
I agree wholeheartedly that a better investigative process should be in place. My point, however, was that two highly questionable shootings, one of which, despite the so-called "discovery" process shielding information in the Scott incident from the public, has produced an affadavit by the shooting officer that is either inexusably erroneous or patently falsified. Combined with the apparent character and social standing of the latter subject, this is creating an election year storm for both D.A. Roger and Sheriff Gillespie, neither of whom just fell off a turnip truck.
They are both astute, accomplished politicians whose chief talent is negociation. No shootings by Metro in the last twenty years have triggered as much controversey as these two have, even though there are plenty that deserve better scrutiny than the status quo inquest procedure. They both know the ACLU, among others, will be waiting to pounce following either inquest, should they find the officers justified or excused. They are both aware that there is enough outcry and controversy that this could push either or both of these cases further into the spotlight, triggering many possibilities including DOJ investigations of the department (at a time when the department can ill afford the costs of defending themselves) and could completely discredit the inquest to the point that it would be replaced. Their greatest interest is in preserving their jobs AND the status quo, the only way to safely do this will be to set up a sacrificial lamb (or two), placate the otherwise apathetic masses, and preserve the inquest procedure. In other words to say, for once at least, "See, it works!"
all police should be required to at least have a Bachelor's Degree in Criminal Justice. If they can kill they should at least be educated, have critical thinking skills, knowledge of law, ethics, etc
their just following the same script that was used when JFK was killed in 63. Worked pretty good then!
@ Wakeup
Or not be a 21 y/o kid!!! How bout a minimum age of 25 or 28...retire 48, sill in somewhat physical prime.
I was surprized to see one of the officers was only 23 years old too. You have to be 25 to drive a taxi in this town. 23 seems too young to be a police officer. My 2 cents
@Green_Dragon, you make some very astute observations, but if the delay is for political purposes, it's not only bad process, it could backfire. You never know if someone is holding onto their cell phone video and plans on releasing it the Friday before the election....
shoot first then.....
dont even ask questions, reload and shoot again
@SummerlinCC-
A calculated risk that still preserves the status quo. Absent surveillance recordings, all they would have to do is say the officers' statements were "inaccurate" as entered into the inquest and schedule a press conference announcing an investigation following the election.
I'm not saying that's exactly how it would go down, I'm just trying to point out that the public should be highly suspicious of an inquest finding against the any of the officers that gives continued life to the status quo. The DA and Sheriff have every reason to give the inquest the appearance of justice, and they are now presented with a golden opportunity to do so and insure it remains the process going forward. I could see a scenario where two of the three in the Scott case are turned against one, with two being "excused" and one being thrown under the bus while the Cole case comes in excusable. There's quite a few scenarios that are highly manipulable and still present plausible deniability for Gillespie and Roger.
I'm not convinced that Metro officers start their shifts hoping they get a chance to draw their weapons. Perhaps some do. It's probably worth a few brownie points in a cops personnel file if they successfully resolve a situation where weapons are discharged.
What is troubling is the apparent indifference for human life that seems to pervade Metro. The indifference is usually followed by what can only be described as a lack of remorse.
=====
@lv1
"But I also know there are bad officers who have themselves committed crimes and caused harm to others, but I choose to not crucify the whole department for the actions of a few."
The trouble with that view is that when cops commit crimes, frame the innocent, or harass someone for whatever reason, no one is in a better position to put a stop to it than other cops. Unfortunately, in police departments across the country (perhaps around the world), there is an ingrained institutional culture that supports the pattern and practice of looking the other way and limiting their involvement to being another brick in the "Blue Wall" of silence). However, they would appear to be complicit by failing to act and become "accessories after the fact." Their failure to act to put an end to it is all the more disturbing when one considers they took an oath to protect the public against just such behavior.
Sadly, it may not be too much of a stretch to imagine if their fellow officers had taken an interest in getting involved it may have prevented events like those found at: http://behindthebluewall.blogspot.com/
Maybe. Maybe not.
=====
It escapes me at the moment, but it is so common there is actually a word for when when cops conveniently forget, or outright omit, facts that lean toward someone's innocence: extenuating, mitigating, (or litigating) circumstances. For example, when they leave out the names of witnesses that don't support the cop's story.
=====
It may be arguable whether we live in a police state, but one thing is certain. Metro is reminiscent of another law enforcement agency that acted with impunity because it was always able to escape accountability. It depends on the definition one uses whether we have arrived at a complete police state, but we have certainly entered the era of GESTAPO 911.
=====
Survive the encounter.
Good luck.
OMG!!! You have a gun, I don't own one, nor do I intend to! YAH know why??
BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TAUGHT ME TO FIGHT WITH MY HANDS!!!!! Whanna take me on? Lets see who wins!!!!! I am a small person, only 5' 2", weighing 115 lbs. You will have to kill me before I stop fighting for MY COUNTRY!!!
darthbry,
I am the one who walks up to you in the coffee shop and thanks you for protecting us. I am one of the ones who insists you get everything you need and want, including support. I am the one who votes yes on everything the City wants for Metro. I am one of many who helps.
You are disrespectful, I doubt you are a cop, as you say you are. Your ego proceeds your poor judgment. You believe you are qualified to make judgments about people and therefore categorize those you automatically hate into your idea of the lowest common denominator, e.g. "Libs," as you call them, as if that somehow makes those you hate less valuable persons. Because you obviously have such low self esteem, and because you hate at least half the population of Las Vegas, if you really are a cop, you are a bad cop. You need to go.
In the meantime, learn English so you won't be such an embarrassment to your fellow officers -- half of which are "libs," dumbass.
<By unlv702
July 28, 2010
9:57 a.m.
<@full_deck and MSH1
"You people who are pretending to be a jury finding the police guilty based on "evidence" in the news media are laughable."
And you are pretending to be a jury in finding the police not guilty based on 'evidence' reported by police officers who may be charged with murder. Ok?
Help me out here with your engaging unbiased critical analysis.
Laughable? Sorry, try again.
Do you even stop and think things through before you type such nonsense?>
No. Not OK. I never said the police were innocent. All I've done is point out several times that the internet posters here are not qualified to summarily convict the police officers but they seem to think they are.
Anyone with even a tenuous connection to reality will realize that both assertions are correct. If you're looking for nonsense read your own post.
<By Lovebug
July 28, 2010
8:21 a.m.
"Goodman said 15 witnesses, including doctors and lawyers who were within five feet of the shooting, have said "unequivocally" that not only was Scott not pointing a gun, he was no threat and had no time to react to multiple police commands before he was shot.
Goodman said Scott was shot seven times, including once in the chest, once in the shoulder, and five times in the back while he was on the ground."
Quoted from: http://www.lvrj.com/news/witness-list-de......>
Lovebug, do you possibly have any second thoughts about relying on the statements of the attorney who stands to cash in big if he can influence a jury in a civil action to decide for his client?
<By Aon
July 28, 2010
12:05 p.m.
The video hard drive was sent to California for forensic analysis? How does that make any sense?>
How does it not make any sense?
@full_deck-
"Lovebug, do you possibly have any second thoughts about relying on the statements of the attorney who stands to cash in big if he can influence a jury in a civil action to decide for his client?"
How about the testimony of three cops, who, if they made a really bad error in judgement, could lose their careers? Do they have any less motive?
Goodman would face disbarment for lying to a court. The officers would face jail for telling the truth to a court. I'll trust Goodman on this one.
I think what's being said in these threads is to inform Metro and the DA office that we are not as dumb as they think we are, some of us are right some are wrong but either way we can exercise our minds and do the same as they would preparing for a trial. Having the answers to the questions before you ask them is a good thing.
All of my life before the Internet blogs we were told be patient wait for the investigation to be completed and when you did and started to ask questions then you were told to wait and let the jury hear the evidence. Why? What? is so secret.
Then when people got off free from being held accountable then you are told to just trust us we are doing what"s in your best interest blah blah blah that is the way things were done to cover up if the officer's are innocent then let's proceed but theses blogs should continue until the inquest is done on account of them postponing it until after the election like we can't see that one either. (We are to dumb to see that one).
Why would Erik Scott point his gun at the police officer? Was he trying to resist arrest? Attempting a police suicide? Under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Mental problems? If we could eliminate all the possibilities one by one with logic and reasoning, like peeling off the skin of an onion, the truth will come to light at the end.
@db1776 - according to the various media reports both witnesses interviewed by Metro, other than the officers, and witnesses interviewed by the media have said there was a gun.
Keeping that in mind whether it was pointed at them or not isn't going to be the deciding factor, IMO. If Scott came out of the store with a gun in his waist band, and was as well trained in firearms as some suggest, he would have known better than to lift his shirt to show the gun or to try and disarm himself. Once he put his hand on the gun he became a threat to not only the officers safety, but the safety of the general public that was still in the area. The officers then took the necessary steps to protect themselves and the general public.
Take a look at this video. Don't know if its the real deal or for training purposes, but it show how quick this stuff goes down. Did you see the second gun? If not, watch it over and over. It came from his back pocket and you can see it in his right hand.
http://blutube.policeone.com/media/3932-...
<Green_Dragon_Regular
July 28, 2010
7:11 p.m.
How about the testimony of three cops, who, if they made a really bad error in judgement, could lose their careers? Do they have any less motive?>
No, they don't. That's why I don't quote their statements like they're the defining conclusion of this case. Quite a few people here don't seem to get that concept.
<<<By SummerlinCC
July 28, 2010
7:21 p.m.
Goodman would face disbarment for lying to a court. The officers would face jail for telling the truth to a court. I'll trust Goodman on this one.>>>
Goodman quite obviously cannot be disbarred for lying to a court because of the simple fact that he is speaking to the news media, not making statements in a courtroom. News media, courtroom testimony, news media, courtroom testimony. Hope that helps.
Additionally, does anyone here think that police officers wouldn't face perjury charges for lying in courtroom testimony?
One thing I hope most of us know is that no one can face perjury charges for lying to the news media. Consequently, people often tell the news media what they prefer to believe rather than the truth.
<<By Voice_of_Reason
July 28, 2010
8:51 p.m.
Take a look at this video. Don't know if its the real deal or for training purposes, but it show how quick this stuff goes down. Did you see the second gun? If not, watch it over and over. It came from his back pocket and you can see it in his right hand.
http://blutube.policeone.com/media/3932-...... >>
It looks like the first shot was fired by the officer who came from behind and saw the second gun. Making him a coward for shooting him in the back according to some commentators here. Laughable.
db1776, you made a lot of good points. Logical. It makes no sense for Eric Scott to brandish his gun in a threatening manor toward 3 uniformed officers.
What does make sense is how David Rogers will move heaven and earth to expedite an inquest when there are political points to be had. This case has nothing but bad news written all over it. And I was very distrustful of David Rogers long before this indefinite postponement.
full_deck
That video, a training video teaching students how easy it is to kill people? Or how easy it is to be killed by people? What was the point? After watching it I wondered how many people went out to buy a gun to protect themselves from cold blooded killers.
Now I notice your link isn't working anymore. Hummm.
I agree, I think everyone should see that video so they can see for themselves how easy it is to die when people with guns are willing to kill. And then they can draw logical parallels to the showdown at Costco.
Excellent choice.
"oh jeez, we messed up and scheduled it right before labor day weekend."
right, like that date wasn't handpicked before to allow for decision and then 3 days break. Now the inquest is going to take longer, dont be surprised either they move it to the thurs before the previous date OR its rescheduled for another Friday.
odds on a Monday morning inquest?
Metro killing a local shopper is FACT --
- a medical device peddling West Point grad with no criminal history pointing a gun at law enforcement personnel with drawn firearms in broad daylight at a crowded parking lot isn't plausible let alone FACT.
: {
By full_deck
July 28, 2010
7:01 p.m.
Lovebug, do you possibly have any second thoughts about relying on the statements of the attorney who stands to cash in big if he can influence a jury in a civil action to decide for his client?
--------------------------------------
I actually don't think for a second that this lawyer is going to put something in the newspaper he doesn't intend to use in court. Also, I am the person that will request and pay for a complete copy of that inquest and I will be more than happy to quote the lawyer as he is saying the same exact thing. Money or no money, he is helping this family make sure the truth comes out.
What information do you have that says that he is saying is not the truth? Do you have inside information that we the public doesn't?
Also where this lawyer has a motive, as you seem to think, I think the officers have the same, cover their butts and pray the truth doesn't come out.
I remember this same thing happening not to long ago, in fact there was an attempted cover-up and I do believe that if it wasn't for public outrage and also an outside investigation that Mr. Calvin Darling would be sitting in prison for the rest of his life. He was drunk remember? Oh that's right he wasn't but the police said he was and also that Mr. Manor had his lights and sirens on too, but didn't.
I don't know about you, but I for one am sick and tired of paying out 120k or more to people for the screw ups of Metro. If you like working for that reason, then please by all means pay my part, too. I wouldn't mind in the least. I know the payout for this wrongful death is going to be HUGE.
ALSO --- Why is it, it seems to be the same officers over and over again. It's not their first kill or shot? Can you answer me that? I have known cops, and seen enough of them that has never had to fire a shot. Can you explain how one can kill more than one person in 5 years? Seems to be a little trigger happy to me.
I will not defend my stand on this anymore, I have my opinion just as you do and I hope and pray these three officers pay for this. Just as we would be demanding if it were the other way around and Mr. Scott had killed one of them.
MURDER IS MURDER IS MURDER...anyway you look at it.
@fulldeck, as Lovebug points out, I doubt that Goodman would make a factual statement on the record that he won't back up in court. Goodman's comment isn't opinion-based. The number and location of gunshot wounds is fact-based. On the other hand, there is no downside to the officers perjuring themselves. The inquest process is stacked in their favor, they can lie and there is nobody to cross-examine them. They stand a strong chance of getting away with it. But if they are caught lying, it will mean that they're already going down for manslaughter, so a perjury charge would be the least of their concerns.
@Harley, yes, most folks see that Metro's story isn't plausible. I'd say 90-95% of civilians have said the same thing after looking closely at the case. But folks like full_deck and Voice of Reason are the 5-10% and they have the difficult task of coming up with reasons to justify putting 5 rounds into an individual's back while they're laying on the ground and trying to dismiss all of the eyewitness accounts that contradict Metro's. But regardless of the facts, they'll keeping trying to justify Metro--which is one of the reason why Metro shouldn't be investigating itself.
@Celeritas - the purpose of posting the video wasn't to show how easy it is to kill or be killed. It was to show how easy it is for a witness to miss seeing the second gun, which explains why you have witnesses that saw a gun and witnesses that didn't see a gun. How many times did you have to watch before you saw it?
@SummerlinCC - "Goodman's comment isn't opinion-based". How do you know this? Goodman didn't say he had a copy of the autopsy report or even that the autopsy shows this to be the case. Without sometype of qualification, it becomes opinion. But as you said at 7:21 p.m., whatever Goodman says is good enough for you.
@ Hearts
Sure my daughter knows not to trust the police and does refer to them as pigs. The cops on balance are a blight on the face of modern society. They have to much power and far to little accountability.
As to prison, sorry I have never done time, nice try though.
JSin
Kudos go to Metro Officer Laurie Bisch for publicly recognizing that the current inquest process is unfair to folks like the Scott family. As she rightly points out, public trust in the police is increased when the system is more transparent and the police can better do their job when the public has trust in them.
I don't want to turn this into something political, but Bisch gets it.
@Voice of Reason, two question for you-
1. Do you believe Goodman is lying, yes or no? Goodman didn't say "may have been shot five times". He is being very specific, so don't give me the "lawyers sometimes spin" comments in generalities. Goodman isn't talking in generalities, neither should you. Tell us, in this specific instance whether or not you think Goodman is lying.
2. If it turns out that Goodman is telling the truth and Scott was shot five times in the back while on the ground, would you agree that the officers should be charged criminally?
@SummerlinCC - how about a link, or did Goodman tell you this on the "sly"? What about the autopsy report, does he have it or not? I notice you seem to avoid that question.
@SummerlinCC
1. I believe Goodman is lying.
2. Your question is to general to answer. Was Scott still a threat? Was Scott no longer a threat?
Now SummerlinCC, how about answering the questions I asked. Does Goodman have the autopsy report? If you answer yes, how do you know?
a witness told me scott was shot in the leg first. Also he was shot by a shotgun.
@VoiceofReason,
1. Thanks for answering the the first question. If Goodman makes the same claim to a court knowing that it is false, he'll be disbarred and you won't have to worry about him anymore. Goodman will have thrown his entire career out the window and you can say you're right. Of course, it's not like Metro is exactly denying Goodman's claim, either. Time will tell whether I'm right or you're right.
2. You dodge the second question by asking questions as to whether Scott was a threat while on the ground and needed to have five rounds fired into his back in order to neutralize him. Your response is almost laughable. Unless the police can show that Scott turned into the Incredible Hulk, I think it is beyond any reasonable doubt that excessive force was used. Funny, Metro still has yet to give a reason for Scott would have even pulled a gun on officers. I guess they're still working on that one.
3. Now to your autopsy question. How do I know? Because I know something about the process. Autopsies are usually performed as soon as possible after death. The quality of the tissue deteriorates over time as bacterial growth and decay affects the body. This means autopsies should be ideally be performed within a day of death. In cases where there are questions about the official autopsy or a controversy, a competent attorney will have an independent autopsy performed. And guess what? All this needs to be performed before the burial. Scott was buried a week after the shooting.
Look, I appreciate your questions, but they're red herrings. The burden is on the officers to justify taking Scott's life, not the other way around.
So if you want to believe that 1.) Goodman is lying on the record; 2.) that Scott turned into something akin to the Incredible Hulk while lying on the ground after getting hit by the first two rounds and and 3.) Goodman made comments about the number and location of gunshot wounds prior to getting the scientific results, go right ahead.
But your beliefs just wouldn't be deemed as being reasonable to me or, I suspect, to the vast majority of people
Earlier, when Metro said there were no witnesses contradicting Metro's version of events, people like yourself were saying, "How can you trust anonymous sources from the media? The media lies all the time."
Well, now some of those anonymous sources have begun to publicly identify themselves.
So we're onto, "How can you trust Goodman? Lawyers lie all the time."
Well, guess what? Earlier I said I thought that the "anonymous" witnesses would step forward. Contrary to the beliefs of all Metro apologists, they've begun to do so. Now I'm saying I think Goodman is telling the truth. We'll see if I'm right again.
Now I initially wanted to give Metro the benefit of the doubt. However, the part of me that is driven by logic is not cooperating in that regard.
Herein lies the problem:
1) Metro states that they have received numerous
witness reports all confirming their version of the story: that Eric Scott was acting "crazy" in Costco and pointed a gun at officers, while receiving no contradictory eyewitness reports.
Well what about these reports?
"I was there, and I never saw this guy do anything with his gun (outside where he was shot). When the policeman yelled, "drop it," he had to reach for the gun to get it so he could drop it. The police started shooting immediately after "drop it" was yelled. As for the statement that he endangered people inside the store, I have not heard--yet--that he actually brandished or waved his gun around inside the store. I believe people just saw that he had a gun in his waist or holster. Fortunately, the cameras at Costco should eliminate some of the confusion in eyewitness reports."
posted: 7/14/2010
http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp...
-------------------------------------------------
"I was at Costco and saw the shooting. The police officers were outside the exits with guns drawn. A helicopter was overhead. I don't know what the dead man was doing inside the store. An enormous crowd was coming out of the store because they were evacuating. I was standing about 20 feet from one officer who had his gun out and drawn. Suddenly, he yelled, "Drop it," and immediately started shooting. Three times. Then two other officers started shooting. I believe each of the other officers shot once. I think there were about five shots. It's a miracle no one else got hit. This was in the middle of a crowd. Was the shooing justified? I don't know.
I didn't see the dead man do anything. But I
certainly would not feel comfortable wearing a
firearm around Metro."
posted: 7/14/2010
http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp...
-------------------------------------------------
cont'd
cont'd from last post
----------------------------
"I have been following this story since it broke and I got the whole thing squared away
A man was seeing if his gym bag (either purchasing or purchased) would fit the number of sports drink bottles he wanted. An employe saw he was opening them up on the floor. Since the victim was crouched, his concealed weapon was showing. The employee came to the victim and told him that he cannot open the packaging. The victim said he could at another store (the "I can do this in Texas" comment) so the employee called his supervisor/manager saying there is a man with a gun opening merchandise and he wouldn't cease. The supervisor/manager immediately called 911 saying there was a distraught man destroying merchandise and he has a gun. The store was evacuated. The victim never knew that he was the reason the store was being emptied.he dispatcher coded it as that and the police came in guns drawn. When the victim was told to get down, he was while he was taking his gun out of his belt.
This is important because the eye witness says that he saw the holster and recognized it.. the gun never left the holster. When the police saw the man touch his gun, they fired to kill. The police were trigger happy
This is a wrongful death and I wish I was a lawyer to charge the officers with murder and the supervisor with accessory to murder; as well as all the smaller charges.Just a side note, I am a champion of the police. I consider the police my protectors and I taught my child to never fear police, cause there to help you when you cannot help yourself. In this instance they are wrong."
Posted: 7/12/2010
http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp...
-------------------------------------------------
"me and my mom were at costco today. unbelieveable day. I will not forget today. I glad that me and my mom are alive today. AND everyone else at costco. me and my mom saw the cpos kill the guy right in front of us. we were sitting because we thought we were going to go back in. I thought it was practice fire
drill. the cops shot the guy right in front of us. we were so scared. the gun man died at the scene. I can't believe it!!! i would like to know what the gun man had in his head. was he planning to hurt people or what. I'm glad everyone at coscto is ok.
Thank you GOD WE ARE ALL ALIVE!"
posted: 7/10/2010
http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp...
-------------------------------------------------
cont'd
-------------------------------------------------
"I couldn't agree with you more....My wife and I were 7 or 8 feet away from the shooting as were the police. We were to the suspects immediate right. We heard and saw the 3 police officers shouting to the man in question to 'get on your knees' several times. At that point the man appeared somewhat stunned by the commotion and shouting of the police. His Right arm went up in a defenseless position and it appeared his left arm appeared to be going up but there was NO gun in his hand. He was taserd and shot at the same time. At no time did the man in question ever raise his voice, shout an obscenity or become confrontational with the police. We saw the disabled man stooping to his right facing us with what appeared to be a bullet wound in his upper chest with blood coming from the wound and immediately his eyes became glossy as he began to convulse. At this point he was no threat to anyone, both hands were in full view of us and there was no gun. As he was down, the police continued to shout 'put the gun down' several times...but there was no gun in his hand as we had full vantage point view. The injured man was having agonal respirations, he was down when the second volly of bullets rang out. There was no doubt in question that following the second barrage of bullets the man was dead. His girlfriend was to the back side of us and began to scream.....why did you kill him, he is a military man with a license to carry a concealed weapon. You didn't need to kill him....you didn't need to kill him. An officer then came up to the injured man who in my opinion was a 'dead' man', was cuffed with his hands behind his back and no attempt by the officer to determine if the man was alive or dead. No apparent life saving aid was given to the 'downed' man. The man was totally lifeless when the Paramedics arrived on scene. I was absolutely surprised to see that no attempt at aggressive ACLS was engaged. They simply just picked up the body like a 'sack of potatoes' and hurled him onto the gurney and into the ambulance This was a crime scene.... the crime scene was violated.........
........One of the paramedics who attended to an injured elderly lady said the man was dead. There was a dead man in front of Costco. What nobody is talking about is that there were many many spectators, many like ourselves within just a few feet of the victim when the shots rang out. It seems to me that the greater danger was posed not by the victim but by the police who fired many shots in the vicinity of the innocent public. I agree with you, I hope the media and your friends family can get their hands of Costco's Camera's which will indeed tell the rest of the story. Also it must be confirmed whether the second gun supposedly found by the victims side was indeed also registered to him as a licensed conceal and carry.This whole incident was a monumental tragedy; a tragedy for the family and friend and also a tragedy for the involved officers who were pushed into a needless confrontation that reached hysterical proportions due to the overreaction of certain employees and bystanders. This was a needless death. In summary it is our opinion that the victim did not pose an immediate threat to the public..... and in the final analysis was a case of excessive force"
posted: 7/10/2010 http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp...
-------------------------------------------------
"I think you are right on. I was there just 8 or so feet away from the pandemonium. The three police officers had their guns out and aimed at the victim. They were shouting 'get on your knees' and 'drop the weapon at the same time. This was evolving as people were still evacuating the Costco store. In the mass commotion and screaming it appeared to me that the victim was stunned and confused as most of us were.
He was given multiple but inconsistent warning
signals to disarm. I think that in his confusion he may have made an attempt to show or remove the weapon....but there was never any threat verbally or physically to the police. I believe emotions took over and common sense went by the wayside. I believe that the officers fired on the perception that he was going for his gun. I saw the victim go down and turn to my side just feet away....there was no gun in either hand. This was a tragedy of monumental proportions. I keep relieving the 'surrealistic' event like that of the Sam Peckinpah movie....'The Wild Bunch'."
posted: 7/12/2010
http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp...
cont'd from last post
----------------------
Should I presume that none of these witnesses contacted Metro? Why would they not? That does not make sense. So either these people are lying, are afraid to talk to Metro, or Metro is not going to publicly aknowledge that they have witness reports that do in fact contradict their version of the events surrounding the shooting. Since when did Metro get to pick and choose which eyewitness reports they were going to go with? Now I am not saying that there are not other eyewitness reports that may support Metro's actions in the shooting. Let's keep our eyes on the ball here: Metro initially stated that there were NO eyewitness reports that contradicted their story. All I am saying is that if that were true, how do they reconcile the reports I re-posted above?...and in addition to point 1) above,
2) Metro appears to have changed their story several times. They don't appear to be pushing the report anymore of "a man acting crazy and destroying property." It seems more of the focus is now on Eric Scott having pointed a gun at officers. I am not a big fan of the police changing stories, particularly when the initial one was sold to us as the basis for their actions.
3) A "glitch" in the Costco surveillance video? This is highly suspicious and a little too convenient. That is all I am going to say about that.
4) Coroner's Inquest postponed "indefinitely."
Apparently because evidence has yet to be submitted to the DA by Metro and the previous date set "would not work."I thought this was a cut and dry case? At least that is what was initially reported by Metro. Why all the extra time then before the inquest? I thought all of their witnesses fully supported their story and subsequent actions. If this is true then what is the problem? "Postponed indefinitely"
because of a holiday weekend? Well then reschedule it for a firm date if you feel that the only issue is that you'll need two days to go over the evidence and interview witnesses instead of one. What the heck does indefinitely mean in this case? Whenever they damn well feel like it?
lastly,
If you take all of the points above, and then include some other recent revelations about the number of police shootings found to be justified in the last 35 years (all but one) through the Coroner's Inquest process, the recent news report of an officer who had shot and killed someone after providing inaccurate information to obtain a warrant, the case where that guy that was T-boned by the officer driving over 100 mph with no lights on and how the department tried to initially make it look like that man's fault, then I can see where you'd you have a recipe for a big pile of you-know-what being offered on a plate to the public in the Eric Scott case. It seems the longer this process drags out and the public is left to wonder what the hell happended, the more it seems like Metro is not being genuine with the people who they are supposed to protect and serve. Now if I am off base here with the impression that I am getting about how Metro does business, well then I am open to criticisms, but BROTHER, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck........
dont forget metro reports that they approached the man and tapped him on the shoulder. What happened to that line? Havnt heard that one from any witness.
Mr Roger has his own people who can look into police shooting and any other wrong doing that the police do. Mr Roger needs to stand up and stop growing his Butt and start growing some @@
@Wolfdog, you're correct that the DA should be looking at shooters as perps. But in this case the shooters happen to be cops and the DA's office has to work with Metro on a daily basis. I'm not sure the DA's office can conduct an unbiased investigation into Metro or even if we as the public should realistically expect them to do so. In most cases, you want the DA to have a close working relationship with the local PD. This is just one of the reasons the Department of Justice should enter the case and provide a true, outside set of eyes.
I filmed the whole event on my polish dog camera.
After having listened to the dispatch recordings, a couple of things are obvious-
1. As suspected, Metro responded to the call expecting to find a crazed gunman.
2. Scott's location as reported in the store in the dispatch tapes match with the eyewitness account of the 72 year old man and his wife. They claimed that Scott was trying to see if metal water bottles would fit in a container and the metal water bottles are sold in the camping section.
3. By the time the dispatcher clarified that Scott's behavior consisted of opening a package, Metro was already operating as if this were a crazed gunman.
4. The dispatch tapes confirm the anonymous eyewitness reports that the police failed to render aid to Scott after he was on the ground.
Gurgling upon the final drops of innocent life-blood, hauntingly moaning why me, why me, the spirit fades into eternal silence.
: {
@SummerlinCC
1. Look, we all know that attorney's "posture" all the time. How many times have you heard an attorney say, "My client wasn't involved" yet they negotiate a plea deal? IMO, Goodman is doing the same thing. But your right in that Goodman can't make those same claims in court if they're not true.
2. Your question was ambiguous at best. It can't be answered without knowing what if any extenuating circumstances exist.
3. I'm well aware that an autopsy has to take place before burial or cremation, I know something about the process as well. But you fail to answer the question. Does Goodman have the autopsy report from the Coroner or does he have an independent autopsy report? I also know the trajectory of the bullets won't be perfectly parallel to the ground even if they are fired from a standing position into a person who is standing. The questions aren't red herrings; if Goodman doesn't have a report then he doesn't know when the shots were fired. Even if he does have a report, he doesn't know why the shots were fired.
I really don't expect you to accept or even consider my beliefs, you made it clear earlier that "if Goodman says it's so, then it's so".
I have no idea if the officer's were in the right or in the wrong, and I don't think I've said anywhere that I believed they were right. What I do know is there will be witnesses who will say they didn't see a gun and there will be witnesses who say they did. Both of them are right, not every person will see the same things. You and I could be standing side by side and watch an accident or even a shooting, and we won't both give the same story. That's why I have said the physical and forensic evidence will have to match the stories given by the officer's.
That is why everyone needs to reserve judgement until all of the facts are known.
@SummerlinCC
Do you have a link to the 911 tapes that you say you've listened to?
Soon I am sure you will see 187 on a muther f$^@*(%& cop.
They have lost the majority of the population's trust.
I have lived in a number of cities including LA in the 80's.
By far this is the most corrupt, dishonorable police regime I have lived under.
I think the vast majority took jobs here because they could not make it LA.
Book em Dano, has been replaced with Shoot em Dano, we will white wash it later.
JSin
@VoiceofReason, they're not the 911 tapes, they're the dispatch tapes.
Recording 2 of 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h15QF0ne0...
Recording 1 of 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCj5j7-Tl...
To "Sun" reporter: Why is there no reference to security tapes in your article. Do they exist?
@VoiceofReason,
1. Attorneys "posture" by providing their client's version of an event. That is there job. But when it comes to relating objective, factual information good attorneys don't lie about the facts. They'll work within the established fact pattern and attempt to show how their client's actions can fit into the fact pattern.
2. I totally agree with your point about different witnesses having different perspectives. Actually, one of the things that most upset me about this case was when Metro came out on the Monday after the shooting indicating that their investigation showed all of their interviewed witnesses supported Metro's version of events that Scott pointed his gun at officers. When asked if there were any contradicting eyewitness reports, Metro said it was unaware of any. Of course, that same day, the LVRJ stated that every eyewitness it interviewed contradicted Metro's version.
I totally agree in these types of situations there will be conflicting eyewitness reports. But once you assess for people's locations, viewpoints, etc, you can begin to get a good feel for what actually happened.
By the way, I didn't say "if Goodman says it so, the it's so". You're misconstruing my comment. What I said is that I would trust Goodman on his statement regarding the number and location of shots over those that think he is lying about the number and location of shots.
Look, I said at the very beginning that Metro should have withheld public comment on this case unless they were willing to release all of the information. Instead, they started immediately to attempt to justify the shooting instead of asking for time to figure out what happened. When Metro started having to revise its' story and then suggested that all eyewitnesses agreed with the police version, they made their own bed. They did the same thing on the Manor case.
The shame of it is that you have a lot of good cops that get painted with the same brush because a minority of cops screw up. Metro PD should be protecting its' good cops and trying to get rid of its' bad cops. When bad cops are protected by an organization, it makes the organization look just as bad. A chain is only as strong as its' weakest link.
@ SummerlinCC,
You are so sure that the police acted criminally here and that they were wrong in everything they did. The dispatch recordings demonstrate exactly what little information the police were given at the time. A man acting eractically with a gun tucked in his backside. The man was reported possibly high on some sort of narcotic. Then police recieved an update that the situation was escalating and that the man began to throw things and raise his voice. These are all signs of someone who was possibly high on some sort of narcotic substance/ or someone who has some sort of mental issue. Who cares about this guy's past achievement and accomplishments. People change for whatever reason. After listening to these recordings the police did an excellant job at what little information they had. Iam sure when an autopsy is complete it will show that some sort of narcotic was present in Scott's system.
@SummerlinCC
I don't agree entirely with your point #2. In the articles I've read dated 7/12, they don't say Metro was asked if there were any contradicting statements, but from my point of view it's a minor issue and not worth haggling about.
I have always believed that Metro should withhold comments about any officer invovlved issues until all of the facts are known.
@VoiceofReason, Channel 8 reported on 7/13 that Metro said there were no other conflicting accounts. I believe the LVRJ may have reported it as well.
@vegaswho, No actually I thought the police did a fine job of moving Scott into a killzone in an area to reduce the potential for injuries to other civilians. But yes, I firmly believe officers made a mistake in this case. And I strongly doubt that there will be any trace of narcotics use when the autopsy results are made public.
I think your problem is that you're assuming that the Costco employee feeding the information to the 911 dispatcher was telling the dispatcher the truth. There was a 72 year old man and his wife that witnessed the exchange between the Costco employee and Scott and they denied that Scott was acting erratically at all. And nobody else that was shopping inside the store saw Scott going "beserk", either.
If you've been reading my posts, I personally believe the Costco employee was either miffed that Scott said he had a legal right to carry a weapon and decided to "teach" Scott a lesson or the Costco employee was too afraid to ask a man with a gun to leave the store, so the employee figured that they would call the police to have them do it and they embellished the story to get the police there faster. Or that the Costco employee that actually spoke to the 911 dispatcher didn't really see Scott at all and was giving the 911 dispatcher erroneous information because it was being relayed from somewhere else in the store. All I know at this point is that not a single eyewitness in the store saw Scott acting strangely whatsoever.
So yes, I think the police overreacted. Do I think they rolled out to the scene with the intent to kill Scott? No. I think at the end of the day, we'll find out that a Costco employee did the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater by providing misinformation to a 911 dispatcher who then relayed the misinformation to the responding officers. The responding officers then treated the situation in a much different way then they would have treated the situation if they knew what was really happening in the store.
Also, check out this TV interview with one of the eyewitnesses-
http://www.mynews3.com/story.php?id=2401...
By SummerlinCC
July 29, 2010
5:26 a.m.
But folks like full_deck and Voice of Reason are the 5-10% and they have the difficult task of coming up with reasons to justify putting 5 rounds into an individual's back while they're laying on the ground and trying to dismiss all of the eyewitness accounts that contradict Metro's.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
There were three police officers. Two apparently fired twice (which takes less than one second) and one of them fired once. Do you expect all three of them to stand there and not fire because one of the others might fire? This "shot him in the back" outrage is ridiculous and laughable.
I haven't dismissed any "eyewitness accounts". What I'm dismissing is the willingness of many here to accept as fact anonymous quotes in the news media and, of course, only the ones they like. Let the witnesses come forward. But then, of course, it's a massive coverup if Metro is taking enough time to get all the witness statements they can and conduct a thorough investigation.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
By SummerlinCC
July 29, 2010
5:26 a.m.
But regardless of the facts, they'll keeping trying to justify Metro--which is one of the reason why Metro shouldn't be investigating itself.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
This a dishonest and complete misrepresentation of anything I've said here. If the police officers are guilty of hasty and unnecessary use of force I'm all for convicting them. You are very biased, closed minded, and now, deceitful.
Sentinel-
How is it that you completely ignore comments like these in the accounts that you posted yourself:
``````````````````
When the police saw the man touch his gun, they fired to kill.
we were so scared. the gun man died at the scene. I can't believe it!!! i would like to know what the gun man had in his head. was he planning to hurt people or what.
The three police officers had their guns out and aimed at the victim. They were shouting 'get on your knees' and 'drop the weapon at the same time.
He was given multiple but inconsistent warning signals to disarm. I think that in his confusion he may have made an attempt to show or remove the weapon....
I believe that the officers fired on the perception that he was going for his gun.
``````````````````````````
Eyewitness statements that the man lying on the ground didn't have a gun in his hand are somewhat nonsensical given that he may have released the gun when he died or the police removed it from his hand as soon as possible when it was clear it could be done without being shot themselves.
It is also not contradictory to order someone to drop to ther knees and drop the gun at the same time. What would be contradictory would be to do neither.
I will wait and see what the evidence is at the inquest. If the police are guilty of hasty and unnecessary use of force they should pay for it. If it turns out that everyone here who has already convicted these officers is wrong then they should be eating crow then and commending the police officers. But lynch mobs don't generally display such behavior.
By SummerlinCC
July 29, 2010
8:52 p.m.
I personally believe the Costco employee was either miffed that Scott said he had a legal right to carry a weapon and decided to "teach" Scott a lesson or the Costco employee was too afraid to ask a man with a gun to leave the store, so the employee figured that they would call the police to have them do it and they embellished the story to get the police there faster.
I think at the end of the day, we'll find out that a Costco employee did the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater by providing misinformation to a 911 dispatcher . . .
`````````````````````````````````
It was reported that the employee told Erik Scott that he couldn't have a gun in the store. If this is true why didn't Erik Scott immediately leave the store with his gun? If he didn't he is the one who overreacted, not the employee whose "overreaction", by the way, is a complete figment of your imagination, so far.
indefinitely postponing is just such a bad idea...
My father is a West Point graduate. I have lived my life around West Point graduates. I have had the pleasure of personally meeting many of the 4 and 5 star generals of World War II and the Vietnam War during my life. I personally know many of the greatest military leaders of the last 40 years and respect all of them, regardless of their politics.
If you graduate from West Point, or any of the other US military academy, you have proven yourself as a loyal US Citizen beyond any possible doubt.
West Point graduates have spent a significant amount of their lives in the study of small arms. They understand *all* aspects of small arms and *all* of the aspects of the laws around those small arms. A West Point graduate, especially one with modern "police" war experience, could serve as a master trainer of Metro police officers.
Sheriff Gillespie's hostility toward the Second Amendment is obvious and legendary. I have serious doubts how this case is being handled. I also have taken notice how the "compliant" Las Vegas media has buried the story.
As some of the posts have said, where's the security camera footage?
If the police officers were justified and the individual simply went mad, then all parties deserve our pity. It is a sad situation, in that case.
If this is another example of a politically motivated Sheriff persecuting law abiding citizens for exercising their Second Amendment rights, then this Sheriff derserves to be impeached or recalled.
I don't walk around armed, and I'm not a fan of the open carry crowd. But if the law says you can be armed in public, either as an open-carrier or as a concealed-permittee, then the police force needs to be trained to deal with law-abiding citizens who happen to be armed.
Some posters have said it was absurd for the victim to carry weapons into a COSTCO in Summerlin, as if that's the last place you'd need to be armed. There is no way to predict where and when you will need your weapon. The victim probably ALWAYS had it with him, just as most of us ALWAYS have our wallets close by.
Personally, that is not the way I want to live, but it was the choice of the victim to do so, and the law says it also was his right.
By John9999
July 29, 2010
11:26 p.m.
If you graduate from West Point, or any of the other US military academy, you have proven yourself as a loyal US Citizen beyond any possible doubt.
West Point graduates have spent a significant amount of their lives in the study of small arms. They understand *all* aspects of small arms and *all* of the aspects of the laws around those small arms.
I also have taken notice how the "compliant" Las Vegas media has buried the story.
As some of the posts have said, where's the security camera footage?
If this is another example of a politically motivated Sheriff persecuting law abiding citizens for exercising their Second Amendment rights, then this Sheriff derserves to be impeached or recalled.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
So much complete nonsense in so few paragraphs. Impressive.
``````````````````````````````````````````````
By SummerlinCC
July 28, 2010
7:21 p.m.
Goodman would face disbarment for lying to a court.
```````````````````````````````````````````````
Goodman wasn't in a courtroom. He was making statements to the news media. Lawyers aren't disbarred for inaccurate statements to the news media. But you know that, don't you?
```````````````````````````````````````````````
By SummerlinCC
July 28, 2010
7:21 p.m.
The officers would face jail for telling the truth to a court.
```````````````````````````````````````````````
Once again- officers convicted by SummerlinCC based on his analysis of news media reports, or at least the news media reports he prefers.
```````````````````````````````````````````````
By SummerlinCC
July 28, 2010
7:21 p.m.
I'll trust Goodman on this one.
```````````````````````````````````````````````
Because he'll cash in big if he can influence a future potential jury with his news media declarations? That's your standard of trust?
@SummerlinCC
Wouldn't you agree that not every witness would seek out the media to give their story OR, that not every witness would be willing to talk to the media if contacted by them?
@John9999
Are you trying to tell us that every West Point graduate or graduates from other US military academies could never make a mistake?
@VoiceofReason:
I totally agree with you that some witnesses might not want to give witness interviews. But as of today, every witness that has been willing to identify themselves and speak publicly are those witnesses whose versions disagree with Metro's version that Scott pointed a gun at officers. Believe me, I am really interested to see the testimony of the individuals that Metro claims agrees with their story. I'm also very interested in learning a little bit more about the techniques and questions Metro used to interview those witnesses and their own officers.
I don't think that John9999 is attempting to say that West Point or service academy graduates can't make mistakes. He said that they have strong familiarity with small arms. That is true. And when there are questions about whether Scott reached for his weapon, that type of background becomes relevant. In the end, the burden is on the officers to prove that they acted correctly. I'm not sure why so many people want Scott's side to prove he acted correctly. The burden of proof is on the officers.
@full_deck: You didn't read my posts, but I'll respond to your drivel anyway. I told Voice of Reason that if Goodman repeats the comments he made on the record to the media in a courtroom, he'll be disbarred and he wouldn't have to worry about Goodman any more. I didn't say that Goodman could get disbarred for making false statements to the media. You have to actually read the comments to which you're responding......
@Voice of Reason, "I really don't expect you to accept or even consider my beliefs"
In reality, I am considering each of your arguments. Thus far, you are the only person defending Metro that seems to grasp how the law applies to LEOs.
I think the difference is that at this point--given the evidence that is available today--I would probably vote that the officers' (or at least one of the officers) conduct constituted manslaughter, unless the videotape exonerates them or it can be shown the eyewitnesses that have stepped forward thus far were mistaken in their accounts.
We know a human life was taken. We have identified the individuals that took the human life. Those burden is now on those individuals that killed to show that they killed legally.
Look, if the videotape shows Scott pointing a gun at officers, then I'll be the first to say the shooting was justified. But it seems the more evidence that comes out, the more Metro is losing credibility.
And when the community loses trust and confidence in its' police force, it's not a good thing for either the community or police. It's these type of "loss of trust" situations that lead to armed posse's of citizens deciding they're going to conduct their own armed citizen patrols. While that may work in the Arizona desert, I'd hate to think about what would happen in Las Vegas.
@SummerlinCC
I'm fairly familiar with the inquest process, a very close friend on mine went through one a year ago. I was simply amazed at the number of people involved in the investigation and the amount of detail they provided. If this one goes the same way, and I don't know why it wouldn't, there will be witnesses testify that disagree with Metro and that agree with Metro.
In the case I mentioned the one witness who sought out the media was called to testify and she of course still didn't agree with Metro. Her husband, who was with her at the time also testified and totally contradicted what she said. They also called another witness who only saw the foot chase, but didn't see anything else.
IMO, they did a good job of presenting both sides.
As for John9999, we have both read numerous articles and posts from people. A significant number of these have stated Scott couldn't have made a mistake because he was a West Point graduate and a fine upstanding citizen. I'm not even going to debate whether he was or wasn't, because it doesn't matter.
What matters is what took place that caused Metro officers to open fire. There is no doubt from listening to the dispatch tape the officers were already on full alert since they were dealing with an armed subject, who reportedly was acting erratic. But what happened during the short period of contact before the shots were fired?
@VoiceofReason,
I'm glad the inquest that you attended was conducted fairly. On the other hand, I've seen a report where two officers gave conflicting information at an inquest about the distance they were standing from a shooting victim. And yes, the shooting victim was the guy that was handcuffed and shot in the back while trying to escape. The inquest found the shooting justifiable. Make no mistake, the guy the police killed in that case was no great loss to society. But I'm more concerned about the process than the specific individual. I think we'd all be better off if an outside agency was involved in police shooting cases and attorney representing the deceased participated in the inquest.
I also agree with you to some extent regarding John9999's post. In the end, Scott's character is not the determining factor in whether the shooting was justified or not. However, John9999 is responding to some of the earlier descriptions of Scott that attempted to portray him as going "beserk" or being unstable. Once again, these perceptions are out there because a Metro PD spokesman began giving descriptions of Scott's behavior based solely on the information that was being provided by a Costco employee to a 911 dispatcher--an employee that might not even have physically seen Scott or that might have been intentionally lying for one reason or another. Like the Manor case, this should once again show Metro that it needs to confirm all information prior to presenting it as factual information to the media.
Onto the shooting. I agree with you that the only thing that matters is what caused the Metro officers to open fire and more important, whether or not they followed proper training as would be expected from a reasonable officer in that situation. Did the officers reasonably assess the threat? Did they follow the appropriate procedures for disarming a civilian? Was there a sympathetic nervous system firing response from one or more of the officers?
I have my own thoughts on this given my review of the evidence and my knowledge of what should have been done. Once again, that's not to say that my thoughts won't change if the videotape is released and it indicates otherwise.
But as of today, I would find it extremely hard to believe that excessive force was not used.
By SummerlinCC
July 30, 2010
6:37 a.m.
@full_deck: You didn't read my posts, but I'll respond to your drivel anyway. I told Voice of Reason that if Goodman repeats the comments he made on the record to the media in a courtroom, he'll be disbarred and he wouldn't have to worry about Goodman any more. I didn't say that Goodman could get disbarred for making false statements to the media. You have to actually read the comments to which you're responding......
````````````````````````````````````````````
The statement of yours that I quoted:
`````````````
By SummerlinCC
July 28, 2010
7:21 p.m.
Goodman would face disbarment for lying to a court.
`````````````
. . . was a statement you made in reference to Goodman's news media statements. You quite clearly made that statement to bolster the believability of his comments to the news media while completely ignoring the fact that he could easily choose to not repeat them in court.
You backed down after I highlighted the illogic of your comment only a full day later in your comment to Voice of Reason. Don't try to be so clever and don't refer to the exposure of your nonsense as "drivel". It isn't helping your case to convict the police officers without evidence.
````````````````````````
By SummerlinCC
July 30, 2010
7:12 a.m.
I think the difference is that at this point--given the evidence that is available today--I would probably vote that the officers' (or at least one of the officers) conduct constituted manslaughter, unless the videotape exonerates them or it can be shown the eyewitnesses that have stepped forward thus far were mistaken in their accounts.
Look, if the videotape shows Scott pointing a gun at officers, then I'll be the first to say the shooting was justified.
````````````````````````
Huge backdown from your previous comments and it's about time
@full_deck,
How do can you possibly interpret my statement, "Goodman would face disbarment for lying to a court" into your assertion that I claimed Goodman would face disbarment for lying to the media? I meant PRECISELY what I said, "Goodman would face disbarment for lying to a court."
As for my "huge backdown" from my previous comments, I'm also not sure what you're talking about.
I believe that the officers used excessive force that resulted in the death of Erik Scott. Once it is accepted that an someone has taken the life of another human being, the presumption of innocence is lost and the burden is now placed on the parties that killed to show that they were justified in taking the life of another.
If the officers used excessive force that resulted in Scott's death, they're guilty of manslaughter. If there is proof that the officers did not use excessive force, then I'm more than willing to say that the shooting was justified. End of story. I just haven't seen any factual information that would suggest excessive force was NOT used.
There is evidence to suggest why the officers may have used excessive force (i.e., the elevated stress levels resulting from the information provided to them via the dispatcher by the Costco employee), but I haven't seen any evidence that the police did not use excessive force.
Do you see the difference?
By Voice_of_Reason
July 29, 2010
5:23 p.m.
"That is why everyone needs to reserve judgement until all of the facts are known."
----------------------------------------
I have done that for years Voice of Reason -- Needless to say I have seen to many people killed by Metro's few trigger happy cops and SHOT IN THE BACK!
I think the inquest process needs to be changed, I believe that anyone being questioned should be crossed examined, too. However, that's not going to happen. The family is allowed to submit questions and the court decides if they will ask the questions to the witness. The people on the inquest panel are allowed to ask questions, but few do. How is it fair that the people on the panel only hear the side that the police wants them to hear?
Just like anyone, you do something wrong, most of the time you are going to try and minimize your involvement. I don't think that police are exempt from this either, they are not robo cop and run off computers, -- THEY ARE HUMAN!
They say a crimimal deserves whatever they get -- police can be just as criminal and they deserve to be held accountable for their actions just as much. A badge doesn't protect you from obiding the laws set forth in this country. It seems that Vegas is a world of it's own and the police here have the menatallity we can do what we want, shoot who we want, and we WILL get away with it. Look at the times it has happened in the last 35 years. Give me a break.
Where you are trying to be a voice of reason, it makes me wonder what you are trying to reason with? The cops that shoot at the movement of a hand, or that you have to live in a city where it's as common as waking up and getting dressed in the morning? What are you actually trying to do? I am very curious about this because you defend the cops in this tragic event just as if they were your family members.
I pray, I really pray another family member, and that includes you and Full Deck, too, never have to experience this with Metro.
I also believe what Goodman is saying. Have you ever seen the pictures from and autopsy of someone shot and killed by the police? I have. I have seen the medal rods they put through the wounds to see where they actually shot from and what angel. Pictures are taken throughout the entire autopsy, those don't take that long to get these days as it is done with a digital camera. I bet Goodman has those, too!
ALSO--- If this man, as it has been stated, was shot in the back on the ground, you better believe that will not be hard to prove. Go look at the ground and tell me if there are marks where the bullets hit the concrete. I am sure they will be some there.
As for Goodman having a copy of the autopsy, I am almost willing to be bet my last dollar he has one the from the medical examiners office and his outside report, too.
@SummerlinCC
"I have my own thoughts on this given my review of the evidence and my knowledge of what should have been done."
-----------------------
Other than what we have been told in the media and listening to the dispatch tapes, what evidence have you reviewed? What do you think should have been done?
I listened to the dispatch tape last night. From the time of what I believe was the original dispatch until the shooting it was approximately 12 - 13 minutes. During this period officers requested a CIT who is more specailized in dealing with disturbed subjects. All incoming officers were also advised to shut down code in order to not escalate the situation.
I myself have a theory why this ended up the way it did.
When Scott exited the building and was identified to officers, they already knew from reports that he was armed. For whatever reason, Scott knew he was the reason they were there, so he either removed or attempted to remove his gun, the only gun anybody was aware of, in order to disarm himself. However, once he put his hand on the weapon he became an immediate threat to the safety of not only the officers, but the citizens still in the area.
Keep in mind, the above is only a theory, I have no concrete facts to base it on, other than some of the witnesses interviewed by the media have acknowledged he had a gun in his hand and of course Metro says he pointed the gun at officers.
@Voice of Reason,
When I first heard the story, I initially had some of the same thoughts that you did. Reading some of the eyewitness accounts changed my mind.
First, the eyewitness accounts all suggest that Scott was surprised that there were officers at all, much less that he was expecting them. Most of the eyewitness accounts suggest that Scott was totally taken off guard. This shouldn't be a surprise because Metro PD stated they had attempted to surprise Scott by letting him pass and then having an officer tap him on the shoulder from behind.
I don't think Scott knew the cops were even behind him, much less expecting that he was being looked by police as a crazed gunman.
Metro's statement that an officer felt comfortable enough to physically touch Scott on the shoulder also led me to ask some questions. If Scott were going "beserk" why weren't other customers running away from him? How come he blended in so well with the rest of the crowd like an ordinary shopper so much so that Metro needed a Costco employee to point him out?
Some of the other reasons that I began to think that theory was wrong is because much of the eyewitness testimony indicated that the officers had their guns drawn prior to Scott exiting the store and that Scott had begun to put his hands in the air until officers began shouting orders. Several eyewitnesses stated that the officers ordered Scott to disarm (along with "Stop" and "Get Down"). At no point did any eyewitness hear "Get Your Hands Up"--which is what I find is perhaps the most significant omitted command. The natural reaction for a person turning around to find three guns pointed at them is to put their hands up. The eyewitness testimony that said Scott was beginning to raise his hands until commands were shouted seems to mesh with what a person in Scott's situation would do.
So if those eyewitnesses are correct, you have to ask why Scott would stop raising his hands and make a movement to his weapon. Either he was actually planning on drawing his weapon at police or he was trying to follow the order to "Drop It", an order that was given despite the fact that Scott didn't have a gun in his hand at the time according to eyewitnesses close to the scene.
(con't.)
There are other parts that makes me think the officers were overreacting to include the number of shots fired and the location. Putting five rounds into the back of a man lying on the ground is excessive force in my book. Now I understand that you think Goodman is lying. I think he'll be found to be telling the truth. I also know that you think Scott could have been a threat while on the ground, but I've yet to read any eyewitness account that comes close to making that suggestion. Not even the initial accounts put out by Metro made that claim.
Eventually, the autopsy results will be made public and we'll see who is right.
This shooting appears to be a classic SNS fire situation, and when you consider the fact that one cop had a prior shooting while the other two cops were rookies, it's almost the textbook scenario for SNS fire (aggressive leader/inexperience follower). One of the officer's stress levels is also evident on the dispatch tapes even after the shooting was over.
I've posted what I thought the officers should have done in other areas, so I won't repeat it all, but basically I suggested that the officers should have tried to assess the threat and followed procedures for disarming a civilian.
If they had based their reaction on their own first-hand observations as officers are supposed to do, they probably would have seen that he wasn't a threat at all. You can from the dispatch tapes that the officers were relying solely on the 911 dispatch operator to make their assessment. By the time the dispatcher clarified that Scott may have just been opening a carton of water bottles, the responding officers were still fixated on the initial part of the dispatch describing someone going "beserk" that may have been high on drugs.
(con't)
Also, if the officers followed standard procedures for disarming a civilian, which include ordering the suspect to put their hands in the air, having them slowly drop to their knees, having them cross their legs behind them when they are on their knees and then disarming them, I don't think we'd be where we are today. Frankly, if the officers had just ordered Scott to raise his hands with a single set of commands, the whole incident would never have happened.
Now I know folks will say "Oh, but this all happens so quickly, you can't expect officers to think that through". The bottom line is that they're not supposed to have to think it through. Officers are supposed to have continuous training on these types of procedures so it becomes a default reaction when the real-world situation presents itself. That's part of their job and that's why officers get paid. If the military can teach soldiers to issue set commands to Iraqis in Arabic then a police department should be able to teach its' officers not to issue conflicting commands in English. I believe that these officers either forgot their training or perhaps were never trained properly.
We'll see what the Costco tapes show....
``````````````````````````
By SummerlinCC
July 30, 2010
9:28 a.m.
As for my "huge backdown" from my previous comments, I'm also not sure what you're talking about.
`````````````````````````
Well, I guess that would be this statement:
````````````````````````
By full_deck
July 30, 2010
8:39 a.m.
Look, if the videotape shows Scott pointing a gun at officers, then I'll be the first to say the shooting was justified.
````````````````````````
Compared to these statements:
````````````````````````
By SummerlinCC
July 28, 2010
5:14 a.m.
They shot Scott FIVE times in the back while on the ground!?!?! If this is true--and it's tough to cover up or dispute gunshot wounds--then the Metro cops involved need to go to jail.
By SummerlinCC
July 29, 2010
9:16 a.m.
Unless the police can show that Scott turned into the Incredible Hulk, I think it is beyond any reasonable doubt that excessive force was used.
By SummerlinCC
July 29, 2010
12:50 p.m.
@Wolfdog, you're correct that the DA should be looking at shooters as perps.
````````````````````````
By SummerlinCC
July 30, 2010
9:28 a.m.
Once it is accepted that an someone has taken the life of another human being, the presumption of innocence is lost and the burden is now placed on the parties that killed to show that they were justified in taking the life of another.
````````````````````````
This comment is absolutely nonsensical and thoroughly biased. In the American court system these officers are innocent until proven guilty just like everyone else regardless of what your wishes are. They certainly don't deserve to be tried and convicted based on your interpretation of news media coverage ( the parts of it that you prefer, that is).
`````````````````````````
By SummerlinCC
July 30, 2010
9:28 a.m.
If the officers used excessive force that resulted in Scott's death, they're guilty of manslaughter. If there is proof that the officers did not use excessive force, then I'm more than willing to say that the shooting was justified. End of story. I just haven't seen any factual information that would suggest excessive force was NOT used.
There is evidence to suggest why the officers may have used excessive force (i.e., the elevated stress levels resulting from the information provided to them via the dispatcher by the Costco employee), but I haven't seen any evidence that the police did not use excessive force.
Do you see the difference?
```````````````````````````
Yes, I do see the difference. The difference is that I am willing to wait for the investigation to take place and see what is presented at the inquest.
You, on the other hand, have been finding these officers guilty based on your selective presentation of news media reports. It's only as of yesterday and today that you have given in a little and said you are willing to accept that they are only guilty until proven innocent which is a concept from the Middle Ages.
````````````````````````
By SummerlinCC
July 30, 2010
9:28 a.m.
How do can you possibly interpret my statement, "Goodman would face disbarment for lying to a court" into your assertion that I claimed Goodman would face disbarment for lying to the media? I meant PRECISELY what I said, "Goodman would face disbarment for lying to a court."
````````````````````````
OK. I can say it again:
The statement of yours that I quoted:
`````````````
By SummerlinCC
July 28, 2010
7:21 p.m.
Goodman would face disbarment for lying to a court.
`````````````
. . . was a statement you made in reference to Goodman's news media statements. You quite clearly made that statement to bolster the believability of his comments to the news media while completely ignoring the fact that he could easily choose to not repeat them in court.
You backed down after I highlighted the illogic of your comment only a full day later in your comment to Voice of Reason. Don't try to be so clever and don't refer to the exposure of your nonsense as "drivel". It isn't helping your effort to convict the police officers without evidence.
@full_deck, you really just don't get it.
1. I meant exactly what I said. Perhaps you missed the following comments on the same topic that I made-
"If Goodman makes the same claim to a court knowing that it is false, he'll be disbarred and you won't have to worry about him anymore. Goodman will have thrown his entire career out the window and you can say you're right. Of course, it's not like Metro is exactly denying Goodman's claim, either."
And
"as Lovebug points out, I doubt that Goodman would make a factual statement on the record that he won't back up in court. Goodman's comment isn't opinion-based. The number and location of gunshot wounds is fact-based."
2. There is no way that I can educate you about the shifting of burdens of proof or persuasion or the presumption of innocence on this blog. You can ask a lawyer about them if you get the chance. I'll try to give a simple example.
If admit to killing you, I am no longer presumed to be innocent of killing you. I lose the presumption of innocence. The burden then shifts to me to show that I was justified in killing you. If I can't prove that I was justified in killing you, I go to jail.
If you notice, the coroner's inquest doesn't ask jurors to find officers guilty or innocent. It asks them to determine if the officers' actions were "justifiable" or not.
3. As for my other statements, I don't see why you think they're contradictory. I said IF Scott pointed a gun at officers, the shooting was justified and I said IF the officers fired 5 rounds into Scott's back while he was on the ground then excessive force was used. You can have a situation where a shooting is justified, but excessive force was used.
For example, if I were to point a gun at police and they were to shoot me that would be justifiable. However, if the police were to shoot me multiple times past the point beyond which I'm a threat, that constitutes excessive force. The shooting is justifiable, but the officers would be guilty of using excessive force.
So there's some basic hornbook law for you. Hopefully, you'll be able to understand some of it.
The real issue is that Sheriff Gilespie's police force has shown a pattern of behavior that indicates its goal is to persecute anyone who exercises their Second Amendment rights.
I would like to add that the US Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. This means, ultimately, that most gun control laws across the nation are illegal.
Frankly, I know many Metro officers and I don't think they believe in the rabid gun control mantra of their leader. However, their C.O. is their C.O. and they have to follow his policies.
I've worked in law enforcement. I always tend to give officers the benefit of the doubt in any shoot/no shoot situation. However, when the civilian individual involved in a shooting is a graduate of a US military academy, I tend to look much closer at the reasons behind the shooting.
I think that Gillespie has trained this force to rabidly fear civilian firearm possession. I don't think it's the fault of Metro officers, per se, it's their training. They seem to be trained to overreact to civilians exercising their Second Amendment rights.
I have, yet, to meet a Metro officer who isn't committed to their profession. Personally, I feel we are blessed with one of the best police forces in the nation. That said, I think they follow whatever training they are given.
I think there were mistakes on both side of this incident. I think the ultimate problem here is Metro's leadership and Metro's training.
If Sheriff Gillespie is so committed to gun control, I recommend he run for the office of Sheriff of Los Angeles, not Las Vegas.
In any other major city in the U.S., the media would be all over this like flies on poop.
"Hello, George Knapp, please?"
What do you mean by 'Additional Investigative Work' is needed and to postpone the inquest 'indefinitely'. This makes me wonder if Metro Police messed up, especially since they will not release the 911 tape or Costco's video tapes. How can we help you with the investigation or do you need to more time to cover up?
Isn't it "funny" that my brother-in-law was also killed by police in Las Vegas claiming he had a gun but conveniently the video surveillance from nearby casinos was conveniently destroyed by a so called careless security guard trying to adjust the knobs. Baloney!! Las Vegas was better when the mob ran it. Now we just have thugs in green uniform.
WANTED, COURAGEOUS INDIVIDUALS WHO PRESENTLY CARRY A BADGE. MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE SECURE IN THE THOUGHT THAT THEY DISCHARGE THEIR DUTIES IN THE MANNER THEY SWORE TO WHEN THEY ACCEPTED THEIR BADGE. first, a side note concerning cc summerlin's simplified hornbook lessons. if a defendant in a murder trial testifies affirmatively to an underlying killing, he is still presumed innocent of the murder however one of the elements of the crime of murder, i.e., an intentional homicide committed by the defendant, may no longer be in issue regarding the state's burden of proof as to that element, depending upon whether or not the defendant testifies that he committed the act intentionally. the aspect of intent is complicated, but in those examples when the defendant admits intent, depending upon the jurisdiction, the issue then turns on whether the act was legally justified. the coroner's inquest is not a criminal murder trial, the rules are not the same. my guess is that 99.99% of las vegas' citizens (myself included) do not know the fundamental procedural aspects of a coroner's inquest. believe me, very very very few metro officers are able to accurately articulate the differences (concerning burdens and presumptions ) between a criminal trial and a coroner's inquest, which is understandable because very few police have a law school education and no one reasonably expects such an understanding. the point i am making is that, while most people understand how a criminal trial occurs from start to close, joe average citizen as well as joe above average citizen cannot discuss with hardly any degree of accuracy, the process that occurs at a coroner's inquest. nor can a metro cop until he or she is involved in a homicide and is subsequently prepared for the ordeal. but what we the las vegas community understands is that year in and year out the conduct of individual police officers in the valley is determined to be "justified" by a coroner's inquest. and in the controversial cases, which there has not been a shortage of such cases during the last decade, we constantly read after the jury's "justified" verdict post coroner's hearing, ONE, that the family members of the decedent are essentially mortified and mystified, and TWO, that the jury members determined the conduct of the officer was justified based upon the case that was presented to them (BINGO). time to draw an inference from what we as a community, with so little actual knowledge of the process, are able to conclude based upon what we DO witness year in and year out. CONTINUED, next comment.
continued from above. whether it's the police union or the sheriff or both or whatever group or groups that influences local police officers as to the desirability of the coroner's inquest, it would seem that since the vast majority of officers support the system that is in place (i.e., the coroner's inquest), those that influence essentially sell the inquest to the police as a definite police officer's "friend." a sales pitch something along the lines of "look, we are committed, with our life and limb, to serving the public's integral safety need, and therefore, when the time comes when we need the public to save our neck, we can only assure ourselves of that pubic reciprocity if we have a coroner's inquest in place. it's what we cops have enjoyed in the valley forever and a day and it has served our previously stated need for public protection and it will continue to do so. thus, i say to you, recently sworn in officer, with a nod and a wink, know that the coroner's inquest is the friend of you and your family, and please do not rock the boat." at first blush it makes perfect sense to endorse this philosophy. who in his or her right mind wants the public's bodyguard to be in fear when daily painting the thin blue line that separates order from chaos? but when very average citizens selling ice cream or buying water bottles are gunned down in the streets by police, it is time to realize that a different variation of chaos exists and that the time to abandon the coroner's inquest arrived long ago. IT MUST BE ABANDONED AT THE BEHEST OF BRAVE AND FORWARD THINKING CITIZENS WHO CLAIM WITHIN THEIR POSSESSIONS, BADGES THAT REPRESENT THE PUBLIC TRUST.
Continued from above.....I say to the deputy district attorneys assigned to the inquests past or present, it is high time to speak out against what you are doing for the reasons that do not need my explanation. I say to any police officer who views herself or himself as courageous, and honorable, that if it is true that you are brave that you are courageous, then you must understand that the coroner's inquest shields those who are not and diminishes your courage to the extent that you do not speak out against it. any police officer that believes he discharges his or her duty conscientiously and does so generally to the best of his or her ability, need not worry about any substitute for the coroner's inquest, and need not worry about being badgered on a witness stand by an adverse attorney. the absolute worse thing the brave have to worry about is admitting to having made a grave mistake, but the public understands, and so too will a jury, the nature and circumstance in which the mistake occurred. but what the public does not need is any single police officer that awakes to a new day with the mind-set that he or she can fire a gun at a citizen with impunity. such a mindset is wholly at odds with the concept of courage and bravery. eradicating individuals within the force with such a cowardly and repugnant notion, we can be certain, will never occur as long as the coroner's inquest exists to safeguard this odd form of publicly sanctioned chaos.