Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By Jackie Valley (contact) 
Thursday, Sept. 16, 2010 | 10:51 a.m.
Related Document (.pdf)
Sun Archives
- Erik Scott’s family asks to view evidence before inquest (9-9-2010)
- Inquest into police shooting to be broadcast on cable TV (9-7-2010)
- Inquest set for Sept. 22 in police Costco shooting (8-12-2010)
- Metro mails Costco customers to find witnesses in police shooting (8-18-2010)
- Candlelight vigil held in memory of man killed by Metro Police (8-11-2010)
- Planning for a situation like recent Costco shooting not easy for police (7-19-2010)
- Man killed by police in Costco shooting honored at memorial (7-17-2010)
- Metro IDs officers in fatal shooting at Summerlin Costco (7-12-2010)
- Officers fatally shoot armed man at Summerlin Costco (7-10-10)
The attorney for the family of Erik Scott, who was killed during an officer-involved shooting in July, sent a letter Wednesday urging a judge to release evidence to the family before a coroner's inquest begins next week.
Attorney Ross Goodman filed a motion Sept. 8 with the Clark County coroner, district attorney and presiding Judge Tony Abbatangelo requesting that the Scott family be allowed to attend a pre-inquest hearing and preview evidence so they can submit meaningful questions during the inquest.
With the inquest set to begin in a week, Goodman sent Abbatangelo a follow-up letter Wednesday asking to schedule a hearing date for the release of the evidence.
In the letter, Goodman asserts that coroner Mike Murphy, who is out of town until the inquest, had no objections to the request, which is why he said it's up to Abbatangelo to grant the request to ensure "a fair and just hearing."
"Your failure to intervene as the Presiding Officer by granting such relief, to include presenting real jury instructions based on real law, will allow Metro, in collaboration with the prosecutors, to repeatedly misuse this process as a clearinghouse designed to free its officers from any accountability in the arena of public perception," the letter states.
Attempts to reach Abbatangelo's office and county officials for comment this morning weren't successful.
Scott was killed July 10 at the Costco in Summerlin after authorities say he pointed a gun at an officer, prompting three officers to shoot him. Some witness accounts have contradicted Metro's version of events.
The inquest, which will determine whether the officers were justified in shooting Scott, will begin at 9 a.m. Sept. 22 and could continue through Sept. 24 at the Regional Justice Center, according to the coroner's office. County commissioners decided last week the inquest will be shown on the county's TV channel, Cox Channel 4.
Why does Ross feel they need to show him evidence? Does he want to decide if he should ask NOT to show the inquest? He seems worried now! Get real Goodman. If your man didn't deserve it, just prove it. Plain and simple.
RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!!! THIS "PROBLEM" WILL NOT GO AWAY BY SIMPLY IGNORING IT!!! Our police officers must be in compliance with the law and stop their rampant abuse of power!!
Discovery should be a part of every inquest.
So many things bother me about this case. Does Goodman want to fight this case thru the media by leaking the evidence and potentially gaining public support? He needs to think fast, ask his questions and see how it plays out on inquest day. That's the system. I don't see why it should be changed for this case.
My feeling is that Goodman is not going to like what he hears at the inquest (witnesses, toxicology, etc..)
vegasguy80 said: "Get real Goodman. If your man didn't deserve it, just prove it. Plain and simple"
A: He cannot prove it because the coroners inquest is not a trial.
TomD1228 asked: "Does Goodman want to fight this case thru the media by leaking the evidence and potentially gaining public support?"
No matter what the public knows about the evidence or facts will have no bearing on the outcome of the inquest. The jurors only see and hear whatever evidence the police and district attorney want them to see or hear and can only make rulings based on the choices and rules given to them to follow.
>>>"Your failure to intervene as the Presiding Officer by granting such relief, to include presenting real jury instructions based on real law, will allow Metro, in collaboration with the prosecutors, to repeatedly misuse this process as a clearinghouse designed to free its officers from any accountability in the arena of public perception," the letter states.<<<
Yep
The evidence is pretty clear, Scott died because 3 Metro Meatheads, paranoid as they are, thought a pair of sunglasses in Scott's hand was a gun. Metro now is trying to discredit Scott personally so it looks like Metro killed a bad seed anyway. See to metro we are all scum and we all deserve a bullet so shut your mouths peasants.
I'm not suggesting it will have a bearing on the outcome.
Still can't understand why you need 2 guns strapped to you as if Costco in Summerlin is the South Bronx at 3am.
The bottom line is that if there are more witnesses that back up Metros claims than backup Goodmans claims...majority will rule.
My questions are
Did he reach for his gun before being asked to do so? Once you reach for your gun without orders to do so...you have put yourself in danger.
Was he under the influence of drugs, alcohol
Indications are that he had a history of trouble and is not the "boy scout" some have made him out to be. I believe his side used the word mischievous to describe him. What did they mean by that? His 2 instances of domestic trouble and pointing a gun at a neighbor or dog and one of his ex wives claiming " he would not live to be 40" is a little troubling. By no means am I suggesting this is the reason he got shot...but there are some troubling historical issues attached to him.
"... a clearinghouse designed to free its officers from any accountability in the arena of public perception."
Pretty strong language. I doubt the judge will like that.
Was he actually convicted? I didn't think so.
Lets hear some dirt on the 3 gangbangers posing as cops. Do they beat their wives? If any woman would have them. 1 or 2 have shot and killed citizens before. Lets hear about that also. What was the excuse for killing citizens last time? Is it the same excuse this time? Gheez!!
@BeatthewolfPack.
The first accusation of domestic violence was filed in Colorado while his first ex-wife was living in Nevada. We won't even discuss the jurisdiction issues there. The complaint was made after he filed for divorce. The judge in Colorado who was presiding over the case tossed it out, saying that it should have never been filed.
I would be very careful of giving the claims made by the second ex-wife any creditability. Her name was Lydia Gorzoch, and in 1999 she was involved with a former Metro officer named Jon Brown. He almost died in her apartment while ingesting GHB and Ecstasy. At his trial, he claimed that he took them by accident. She accepted a plea deal and was placed on probation. She was the one who made the claims about pain killers and steriods. In her divorce complaint she made accusations of threats, but provided no specifics, and no records exist of domestic violence complaints filed by her against Scott. Within hours of Scott's death, she was in contact with Metro offering to provide some "dirt" on him.
There was never a battery/domestic violence conviction.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/darker-details-......
pack.
Tanker, your answer to an image assassination of Erik Scott is to throw everybody in front of the bus who disagrees with your opinion??
Then you try and assassinate others.
Not the best defense. It's like a fifth grader screaming, "he touched me first"
This is a serious issue. In my humble opinion, your rants are not helping.
@getalife. Follow the link. My comments are a summary for those who don't want to follow it. Everything in my post is in the public record. No assassination involved.
Tanker - Good information, thanks.
Beat the Wolf - Stop your ranting and spreading missinformation.
GetaLife - Get a life
Erik Scott - RIP
Looky the police will come up with a justification but that does NOT justify the many nefarious activities which result in unnecessary deaths. They need to acquire other than six shooter skills so they may do something besides kill folks as a solution.
@getalife, Tanker's postings are hardly rants. They're substantiated with facts.
@BeatTheWolf: You should stop smoking what you're smoking. Metro conducted a background investigation into Erik Scott when they approved him for a concealed weapons permit back in 2008.
At that point in time, Metro didn't find anything in his background that would prevent him from carrying a gun.
Scott's first wife made an allegation only AFTER Scott filed for divorce. The judge in that case verbally reprimanded the local prosecutor for charging Scott at all. As for the second wife, she never accused Scott of any physical violence, but said that he made "threats". Of course, those allegations didn't occur until his ex-wife was asking a court for financial support from Scott.
Metro is trying anything to come up with an explanation for why their officers wrongly killed Scott. Scott didn't have a criminal record, wasn't shoplifting, wasn't destroying the store, didn't have a gun in his hand at the time he left the store etc.
The only thing Metro has left is to suggest Scott was "erratic". Hence, they've turned to Scott's ex-wives, one of whom has a criminal record and didn't make an allegation about Scott until her lawyer was trying to get money from Scott in a divorce.
Either Metro officers were incompetent in their original background check on Erik Scott back in 2008 or Metro is grasping at straws and is engaging in character assassination.
Regardless, Scott's attorney should be provided with the evidence prior to the inquest. I can't believe that anyone would actually defend the current process where Metro has access to all the evidence for months and the deceased's attorney doesn't see anything until they day of the inquest.
Just what is Metro afraid of?
What the family is asking for is exactly what they would be entitled to if Erik had survived his wounds and was being tried. He is guaranteed certain rights, like viewing the evidence against him, being able to present witnesses on his behalf, and to cross examine witnesses. If that is not provided in a criminal trial severe penalties can be imposed. But since he was killed, he and his family have lost all of those rights. How many witnesses will be presented that will say they never saw a gun? I'm betting NONE!!!!!
It all comes down to the day. What caused someone to call 911?
Why are there allegations of improper/berserk behavior?
Why didn't he just leave Costco without backtalk?
Why did police shoot?
He has 2 separate incidents involving 2 separate ex-wives and a neighbor (where he drew his gun)...he's not here to defend himself, but at the very least it raises questions.
Why was Erik Scott described as "mischievous" by his own family?
I think the issue will become that more witnesses than not will say Erik was pulling a gun from his waist when he was never instructed to do that. I don't believe he had any intention of harming anyone, but I do think his actions that day contributed to his death.
From that point police have no idea of his intentions. The inquest should lay out the timeline and what exactly happened...I hope.
The only 911 call was initiated by a Costco employee who thought that he shouldn't open some water bottles to see how many could fit in a backpack. Hardly a capital offense.
As far as the ex-wives go, see my posts above. The issue with the neighbor was investigated by Metro and no charges were filed, other than the complaint Scott made after getting bitten by his neighbor's dog.
There are some issues with the second gun. Why was it not discovered until Scott was on the way to the hospital? If he was such a threat, why was he not searched by one of the three officers who shot him. Do both guns match the caliber, serial numbers and models listed on his CCW?
The issue here is that the DA and Metro control the witnesses that are called. They don't even have to call the girlfriend to testify if they don't want to. Not sure that would be politically wise however. They can only call the witnesses that support the Metro version of he had a gun. Without the video, there is not physical record of what happened inside and outside of Costco. However, given how busy that store is, especially on a Sat afternoon, I would assume that if his behavior was so outrageous, there would be many calls to 911 from the store, but that doesn't seem to be the case. As the store was being evacuated, people were not running away from Scott, which I would assume would be the case if he had a weapon visible. So the question becomes, why was he viewed as a threat by the officers? Oh yeah, the magic "I was in fear for my life" card.
Just remember the Long Gray Line is watching.
There were statements to the effect that he was kinda going berserk. You can't just accept "your" witness(es) testimony and throw out the DA's witnesses...and vice versa
I saw your posts about the wives and neighbor. It doesn't diminish the idea that there was some questionable behavior. You can't have it both ways. One wife making accusations is one thing...once a 2nd wife is brought in also making accusations, you have to start looking at the character of the individual.
I don't think Erik Scotts family is going to hear what they want to hear. Someone throwing around merchandise, giving a Costco employee grief about being questioned about his CW is not necessarily going to get people to call 911.
Is it just possible that Erik Scott in a fit of anger made a decision to pull out his gun after police confronted him? Not to shoot anyone, but merely to motion "here's my gun" without listening to or acknowledging police demands? Typically cops will not say "drop it" unless the gun is in your hands. If his gun(s) was holstered police would have said "hands up" or something to that effect.
I guess we'll find out. I'm growing skeptical that police just decided to open fire without some type of provocation.
Metro never makes mistakes and is always right.
He made a furtive move.
He pointed a gun at me.
He stole a candy bar when he was ten years old.
Make sure the camera is corrupted.
WHAT I MISSED, OH NEVER MIND.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aSJgcpqe...
2TOM D.
Would this be the second wife that you believe is so creditable? A convicted druggie? Her name was Lydia Gorzoch, and in 1999 she was involved with a former Metro officer named Jon Brown. He almost died in her apartment while ingesting GHB and Ecstasy. At his trial, he claimed that he took them by accident. She accepted a plea deal and was placed on probation. She was the one who made the claims about pain killers and steriods. In her divorce complaint she made accusations of threats, but provided no specifics, and no records exist of domestic violence complaints filed by her against Scott. Within hours of Scott's death, she was in contact with Metro offering to provide some "dirt" on him.
There was never a battery/domestic violence conviction.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/darker-details-.........
I've never said that he did some things that I wouldn't have done, but Metro investigated those and no charges were filed. So you can't have it both ways either. Officers issued three different commands, including the two you mentioned. Which one is supposed to be obeyed?
The only witnesses who are going to testify are those who support Metro's version of events. Nobody else. We all know that this one has been stamped justifed, just like all others. Everybody will say, "see we told you good shoot", and hope it goes away, but it won't and the rest of the questionable shootings won't either. Other people in other places outside Las Vegas are looking.
You might be surprised by what you hear at the inquest.
@TomD1228
what you fail to recognize is that past allegations will have no bearing on the specific question: were the officers justified in using deadly force?
none of his past could be used to support the answer to that question. that is why the information was leaked by Metro. It was a feeble attempt to taint the Inquest process and sway public opinion.
let's assume his past was a factor. the only way it could be remotely connected to the shooting were if someone wanted to challenge reports of him acting dangerously toward police that day. past allegations could be used to present a profile or pattern of behavior to counter the challenge.
the problem with that however, is that not one person has come forward to support that he was acting erratic or pointed a gun at officers. not one witness has come forward and made themselves known publicly. on the contrary witnesses have come forward to say just the opposite.
further, the officers could not have had any a priori knowledge of who Scott was or what he might do. all they had was one phone call from Costco. One telephone call is hardly justification for deadly force. further, the behavior of other customers does not support the story provided by Metro. period.
If it were cut and dry, you would not have so many citizens clammering for an independent investigation. top that off with Metro sending out letters to get witnesses, which they initially said they had plenty of, the loss of the video evidence at the time of the shooting and the unusual circumstances of the case in general. I have not read one story ever in which an individual with a permit to carry concealed did some Saturday shopping, picked up a prescription while with his gilfirend, payed for his items, walked out of a store peacefully among other customers, only to decide he was going to enagage three police officers in a close combat firefight, with guns already drawn on him amidst a crowd of bystanders. I havn't even read one story of a person off his rocker doing something remotely close to that.
now come on TomD1228, does any of this make much sense at all?
now what does make more sense TomD1228 is that the officers were lead to the scene by an over-exaggerated call by one Costco employee, that for whatever reason, wanted to paint Mr Scott as going psycho. police officers were then expecting to encounter a crazed gunman and were on high alert/survival mode. Mr Scott was pointed out to officers by the Costco employee as he was leaving the store. officers then began barking mutliple commands at Mr Scott when they confronted him. Scott attempted to comply with one of those commands, but one of the officers observed him responding differently to the command that was his own (i.e., following one of the other commands). the officer panicked and fired his gun at Scott. the other two officers then followed by firing their weapons.
you don't think this happends. read the recent story of the officers who shot the guy who apparently pointed a shotgun at them. one of the officers reported firing his weapon becuase he had heard gunfire. however, he stated that he was not sure who it had come from, his partner or the suspect.
Look TomD1228, I respect your right to have your own opinion on this, but recognize that others have questions about this case. what's more, if errors in procedure occurred and this man was shot dead when for all intents and purposes he should be alive, then we have some serious training and accountability issues that need to be addressed immediately with Metro.
also, the current problem with the Inquest system is that it is perceived as a story telling process by which the officers under review only need to express that they feared for their lives to warrant a "justified" verdict. such a vague and subjective statement as "I feared for my life" is problematic. it means different things to different people. I fear for my life when forced to eat fast food when nothing else is available. my point, we need better objective criteria for making that determination during the Inquest process.
to many, this might all seem trivial. but to the educated citizen that is guided by facts, reasoning and a current understanding of how the Inquest process is flawed, it is a matter of public safety and can no longer be overlooked.
If the officers make generalized statements like "I feared for my life"....I agree, Metro has a problem in this case.
I can only hope the inquest answers a lot of questions. My fear is that minds have already been made up as it relates to Metros actions that day.
Maybe I'm jumping the gun...the reality is that I don't think a specific judgement can be made until the evidence is presented. You seem to have already made up your mind, regardless what is presented.
My fear is that Erik took out his gun when not instructed to. My understanding is there are at least a dozen witnesses that said he took out his gun.
Is it possible he was told to put his hands up....he did not comply and attempted to pull out his gun to show police or to drop it?...by then cops are witnessing an individual not complying with their initial order. Cops have no clue what his next move will be.
Also very troubling is the line from police "stop, I told you to stop"....why are the police having to tell someone twice to stop? Once is enough.
No security tapes?
@TomD1228
you said: "Also very troubling is the line from police 'stop, I told you to stop'....why are the police having to tell someone twice to stop? Once is enough."
please site your reference to that quote from the officers involved. I have yet to hear or see any transcripts from that day. there was an audio recording from the dispatcher and several other officers, which was posted in news outlets over a month ago. However, I listened to that recoring very slowly and carefully and there was no direct dialogue between the ofiicers and Mr Scott on that recording.
are you privy to information that the rest of us are not? where did that statement come from? name and date of source please.
At the end of the day Metro needs to justify putting 7 rounds into someone with a legal concealed weapons permit who didn't even have a gun in his hand at the time officers approached him with their own weapons drawn. Oh, and Metro itself conducted the background check on Scott prior to giving him the weapons permit. And of course, Metro's version contradicts that of multiple eyewitnesses. So about those videotapes that Metro has been holding onto for the past few months.....
At the end of the day, the rational, thinking and normal people will know Metro fired 7 rounds into an armed man with a history of violent behavior.
He trespassed onto private property with a weapon that was not allowed. When politely asked to leave because of his pistol, he refused. And when Costco was evacuated of all individuals because of him, he attempted to use that weapon against our police officers and they protected their lives and the lives of others.
Those are the facts, SummerlinCC. End of story. Erik Scott was not the Boy Scout you and others want him to be. He was not a good guy. He wrapped himself in a good package, but he was a bad dude. He bullied women, neighbors and probably many other people. Erik Scott ran into 3 heroes who would not be bullied.
Bravo, Metro! You did the right thing!
@ImNewHere. Once again, what evidence do you have besides your imagination that he was asked to leave Costco. No reports, other than rantings and ravings on threads have ever made that claim. Costco has never even admitted that he was in the store!! How could he be trespassing in a place that has never acknowledged he was there.
The issue of where his weapon was when he was confronted by police is disputed at best. Many accounts say he didn't have a weapon in his hand, while others say he did. Only the "corrupted" video would show.
The neighbors dog bit him and Scott filed a report as he should have. Only after that dog bite report was filed, did the neighbor call police. Your great Metro investigated the allegations and found them without merit, and no charges were filed.
In 2008, he was granted a CCW permit by Metro. This was after "he bullied women", what ever that means. Metro felt that there was no evidence of domestic violence and granted the permit.
About those seven rounds, do you know that at least 4 were fired while he was on the ground hitting him in the back?
Oh, can you explain, why if he was so dangerous, he was not searched after he was shot? Seems like that should have been done. If they had done that, they might have found the second gun which was recovered after he was transported to the hospital.
@Tanker1975: Gawd, they say having an argument with a moron is a waste of time. But I do it anyway. Perhaps you've never heard the professional transmissions Metro had before that psycho was stopped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCj5j7-Tl...
I used to be like you. I thought this was a horrible atrocity by Metro. But as the facts come out, they did the right thing.
Thank you LVMPD! I'm glad I can call you in the middle of the night and know you'll be there for me.
Discovery does not pertain to Inquests and this is the biggest drawback and deepest loop-hole in this Judicial process. This Attorney, is being Ingenious defending this case, but nothing will change and after all said and done..it will be "business" as usual.
FBI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!