Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Dr. Alane Olson, a medical examiner for the coroner’s office, right, uses Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent to describe gunshots suffered by Erik Scott during a coroner’s inquest at the Regional Justice Center Wednesday, September 22, 2010.
By Cara McCoy 
, Dave Toplikar (contact)
Published Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2010 | 10:41 a.m.
Updated Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2010 | 6:26 p.m.
Sun Archives
- Family critical of process as inquest into police shooting set to start (9-16-2010)
- Attorney for family in police shooting calls inquest process ‘a farce’ (9-16-2010)
- Attorney in Erik Scott case sends letter to judge over evidence (9-16-2010)
- 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)
6:06 p.m.
After about seven hours of testimony, the coroner's inquest into the July 10 police shooting of Erik Scott at Costco is finished for the day.
The jury heard from several physicians who treated Scott for pain, including some who prescribed narcotic pain medication for him, which included a high level of morphine and Hydrocodone.
The final witness of the day was Colleen Kullberg, a Costco employee who saw the shooting.
Justice of the Peace Abbatangelo said the inquest will reconvene at 9 a.m. Thursday at the Regional Justice Center in downtown Las Vegas.
A list of drugs found in the blood of Erik Scott is displayed during a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center Wednesday, September 22, 2010.
5:46 p.m.
Colleen Kullberg, who was working part-time at customer demonstrations at Costco, told jurors she saw Erik Scott pull out his gun and point it at a Metro officer before officers shot him.
Kullberg said as she tried to leave the store, she saw Erik Scott staring at an officer after the officer had told him to get down on the ground "at least five times."
"He reached behind him and pulled out his gun and aimed it at the officer," Kullberg said. "At that time, the officer shot him."
Asked to describe what Scott did as he was standing, staring at the officer. "He was like dazed. He was just looking at him. He wasn't obeying any of his commands."
5:36 p.m.
The coroner's inquest in Erik Scott's shooting death took a 10-minute recess at about 5:10 p.m.
The recess followed about 40 minutes of testimony from one of Scott's physicians, Dr. Joseph Gnoyski.
After Gnoyski said Scott didn't appear to be a drug seeker and mainly took prescription drugs to deal with pain, Chief District Attorney Christopher Laurent began cross-examining him.
Laurent pointedly asked if Gnoyski knew if Scott was getting additional morphine from any other source. The doctor said he didn't know.
Gnoyski said Scott had a physiological dependency, but that wasn't the same as an addiction, which also involves a psychological dependency, he said.
Gnoyski said over a period of time, Scott began to get better and that his pain level shrunk from a "10 out of 10" to a "two out of 10" on a pain scale.
Laurent asked him if the dosage of morphine that Scott had been taking could have caused him to misunderstand directions.
Gnoyski said Scott should have been able to follow directions even at that level of morphine.
Laurent also pointed out that Gnoyski had drafted a letter that was going to cut Scott off as a patient after he became worried about Scott appearing groggy following a casual visit Scott had made to his clinic.
Gnoyski said he changed his mind and didn't send the letter. He decided to have Scott come back into the office for treatment and reduce the amounts of Hydrocone he was taking and, eventually, the amount of morphine.
5 p.m.
Dr. Joseph Gnoyski, who treated Erik Scott for pain, testified he didn't think Scott was a drug seeker.
"This guy works out every day. It's not like he is seeking a buzz just to lie around," Gnoyski said. "... I don't believe this man was trying to get a buzz ... It just doesn't mesh with his character."
He said Scott was a high-level athletic performer, similar to an acrobat who might be in a Cirque du Soleil show on the Las Vegas Strip.
"I have a lot of respect for him," Scott said.
Gnoyski said there is a difference between someone who is an addict and someone who seems to be an addict who needs it for pain. But someone who seems to be an addict will begin to cut back on their medication once they begin to manage that pain.
Gnoyski said when he saw Scott act in a groggy manner, "it wasn't like he was out of control, that he was going crazy."
4:15 p.m.
The next witness in the coroner's inquest into the Metro Police shooting death of Erik Scott is Dr. Joseph Gnoyski, whose specialty is taking care of people with pain problems and debility. Gnoyski said he began seeing Erik Scott for his lower back pain.
He said Scott told him he had a paratrooping accident and a football accident, followed by a more recent automobile accident, in February. Gnoyski said Scott described his pain as a "10 out of 10" after the auto accident and said he couldn't function.
Dr. Joseph Gnoyski, one of Erik Scott's physicians, testifies during a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center Wednesday, September 22, 2010.
Gnoyski said he ordered an MRI for Scott and found Scott had an unstable spine. Gnoyski said Scott didn't want surgery and described him as being very physically fit.
Gnoyski said he saw Scott seven times. Initially, he didn't follow the treatment, Gnoyski said, but midway through the treatment, Scott eventually became compliant with the treatment.
Gnoyski said Scott's final visit with him was an informal visit in a hallway. Scott seemed to be groggy and had stumbled a couple of times, the doctor said.
"After 40 to 50 paces he regained his composure. I had thought he might not have used his meds appropriately," Gnoyski said. "My last dealing was to try to get him into my office."
Before Gnoyski testified, the jury heard about 45 minutes of testimony from Dr. Daniel Kim, whose specialty is pain management. Kim said he began treating Scott on Feb. 2, 2010, for chronic abdominal pain.
Kim said he prescribed medication for Scott that should have taken care of his pain. But about two weeks later, Scott contacted Kim to say he was out of medication.
"He doubled up everything that I gave to him," Kim said.
Kim said he terminated Scott from his clinic and referred Scott to a list of detoxification centers.
"He has an addiction problem to Hydrocodone," Kim said.
Kim said it was possible for people to be addicted to a narcotic substance and still do their jobs. He said about 5 to 10 percent of people who come to pain clinics might be addicted to their pain medications.
Asked if he thought his interactions with Scott led him to being shot by Metro police officers, Kim hesitated.
"That is a very philosophical question," Kim said. "Maybe I should have been more forceful and more demanding for him to go to detoxification center. I don't know."
Dr. Daniel Kim, one of Erik Scott's physicians, looks through medical records during a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center Wednesday, September 22, 2010.
3:26 p.m.
Dr. Daniel Kim, whose specialty is pain management, testified he believes Scott was addicted to Hydrocodone.
Kim began treating Scott on Feb. 2 this year for chronic abdominal pain. Kim is the third witness in the coroner's inquest.
"Sometimes it is almost impossible to detect who is and who isn't an addict," Kim later testified.
3:10 p.m.
Kim followed about 45 minutes of testimony from one of Scott's other physicians, Dr. Shari Klein.
Klein said she treated Scott for about two years, up until about 10 months before he was shot.
She told the jury that during that time he tried to get her to prescribe Hydrocodone, a narcotic painkiller that he told her he wanted for depression.
However, she said she never prescribed that medication for him, even though he told her she could use the excuse that he had lower back pain and shoulder pain.
She said she tried to get him to come in for a consultation, but he decided to drop her as his doctor in August 2009 for financial reasons.
She said she never prescribed morphine or any other narcotic.
2:28 p.m.
The coroner's inquest into the Metro Police shooting death of Erik Scott has resumed after taking about an hour lunch break.
The second witness testifying today is Dr. Shari Klein, of Las Vegas, who has been practicing medicine for about 10 years. Klein treated Erik Scott for two years.
Klein said Scott was her patient until August 2009. He didn't come in after that time, she said.
He told her he couldn't continue going to her because of financial reasons. She had gone into a "concierge" practice, which costs more than a regular physician's visit, she said.
Scott family attorney Ross Goodman again raised an objection while in the audience and was admonished by Judge Abbatangelo.
1:42 p.m.
The coroner's inquest in the shooting death of Erik Scott by Metro Police officers is taking a lunch break until 2 p.m.
The judge, Tony Abbatangelo, took the break after the jury heard about an hour's worth of questions put to Dr. Alane Oslon, the medical examiner who did the autopsy on Scott.
She explained that she ruled Scott's death a homicide resulting from multiple gunshot wounds.
She said there were two gunshot wounds that entered the front of his body and five that entered the rear, including one that entered his buttocks area and traveled up through his pelvic region.
Two of the shots hit his heart, she said. None of the shots was immediately lethal, she said.
She also spent several minutes describing the amount of drugs and the type of drugs that Scott had in his body, which included what she said normally would be lethal levels of morphine and Zanax.
However, she did say it was possible he could have become "habituated" to those amounts over a period of time, which would allow him to function normally.
She said the depressants found in his body also could have slowed his functions, similarly to someone who had been using alcohol.
After the judge and attorneys asked questions, the judge read 25 questions that were posed by interested parties in the courtroom, which included Scott's family and his attorney.
Some 50 witnesses are expected to testify during the inquest, which is expected to last through the end of Friday, and possibly another day, Abbatangelo said.
1:22 p.m.
The coroner's inquest broke for lunch at about 1:15 p.m. after questioning of Dr. Olson concluded.
Olson testified the official cause of death for Erik Scott to be multiple gunshots. The manner of death was classified as a homicide, although classifying a death a homicide doesn't connote whether it was criminal -- it only means it was the killing of one person by another.
She said the high amount of drugs in Scott's system was potentially lethal. She also said it was possible he was accustomed to that high level of drugs.
The morphine and Xanax both were at potentially lethal levels, which she said indicated Scott had built up a tolerance over time.
Dr. Alane Olson, a medical examiner for the coroner's office, testifies about gunshot wounds during a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center Wednesday, September 22, 2010.
12:25 p.m.
Dr. Alane Olson, a medical examiner at the Clark County Coroner's office, was the first witness in today's coroner's inquest into the shooting death of Erik Scott.
Olson was giving a detailed explanation of the seven bullets that struck Eric Scott based off her July 11 autopsy.
She said five of the shots entered his back and two entered the front of his body. One of the bullets entered his buttocks area, traveled up through his bowels and lodged in his chest.
She said it was "indeterminate" how close Scott was from the gun barrels.
She said he also had some minor scrapes on his hands and his right knee. He also had wounds associated with attempts of medical personnel to give him aid, she said.
She was being inteviewed by Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent, who was asking her about the toxicology report, which outlined the drugs Scott had in his body at the time of death.
12:01 p.m.
The seven jurors and four alternatives have been selected.
The judge, Abbatangelo, was giving them instructions, which included not talking about the case outside of the courtroom, or reading or listening any media reports on the case.
He said the jurors will not be sequestered.
He said the district attorney will call a witness and ask questions, then the judge will ask questions, then the jurors may ask questions. Abbantangelo said he will also receive written questions from the public and will decide if they can be asked.
Justice of the Peace Tony Abbatangelo presides over a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott during jury selection at the Regional Justice Center Wednesday, September 22, 2010.
11:54 a.m.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent and Owens continued asking prospective jurors questions, particularly about what they felt about people who use drugs.
"We're trying to avoid prejudice against him for drug use," Owens said.
The judge, Abbatangelo, excused one juror because of a prejudice against someone who had used drugs.
11:38 a.m.
The juror selection process was continuing as the judge and the district attorney continued asking each juror questions.
The judge, Tony Abbatangelo, has now excused a total of five jurors. He said he was searching for an "open-minded" panel.
One was excused because she was a Metro employee. Another because of ties to the coroner's office. Two were excused because family members had felony convictions. One was excused for hardship.
Attorney Ross Goodman objected to the excusal of one of the jurors and was admonished by the judge for addressing the court. According to county code, the victim's family and their representatives are only allowed to submit written questions.
Earlier, as Assistant District Attorney Chris Owens gave his overview, he explained that a controversial video that showed the shooting had been damaged and that some of the witnesses called would be brought in to explain how there was an attempt made to recover the video from a hard drive.
Owens said witnesses included eyewitnesses at the scene and also witnesses who came forward later after being solicited by investigators. He said some of them live out of state.
He also said jurors would be asked to determine if the shooting was justifiable, excusable or criminal. He said "excusable" should be the verdict if they thought the shooting was accidental. He said "justifiable" should be arrived at if they determined the shooting was in self defense or in defense of someone else.
Dustin Deguevara holds a sign in front of the Regional Justice Center before a coroner's inquest into the shooting of Erik Scott Wednesday, September 22, 2010. Scott was shot and killed by Metro Police Officers at the Summerlin Costco on July 10. Deguevara said he is best friends with Erik's younger brother.
11:25 a.m.
The inquest is now in its initial stage and the seven jurors and four alternates were being selected.
Justice of the Peace Tony Abbatangelo was questioning the jurors to make sure they would be able to judge the case fairly. He excused two of them.
Abbatangelo began the proceedings about 10:50 a.m. by giving an overview of the process and introduced his court officers and Mike Murphy, the coroner.
Some 50 witnesses are expected to be called, said Assistant District Attorney Chris Owens in giving jurors his own overview of the case.
Owens said he hoped the inquest could be finished by the end of the day Friday, but the case might spill over into another day, he said.
Members of the Scott family, father Bill, mother Linda, and younger brother Kevin, listen to Clark County Coroner Mike Murphy before a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center September 22, 2010.
11:08 a.m.
Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Tony Abbatangelo, who is presiding over the inquest, gave an overview of the inquest process.
Also expected to testify this morning is Shai Lierley, the security officer at Costco who called 911 to report a man was acting erratically, destroying merchandise and was possibly high on an unknown substance, said Assistant District Attorney Chris Owens in giving jurors an overview of the case.
Owens also said 911 calls and some video will be played. He told jurors several experts would testify about the efforts that were made to recover data from a failed Costco computer hard drive, which was recording the video camera pointed at the door.
A call to repair the drive had been placed several days before the shooting, he said.
10:48 a.m.
The potential jurors in the case are expected to be brought to the courtroom soon to go through the voir dire process for the coroner's inquest.
Seven jurors and two alternates will be selected to hear the case, which is expected to last several days.
The tentative witness list of those who are expected to testify includes 22 people.
As the courtroom was waiting for the proceeding to begin, Clark County Coroner Mike Murphy arrived.
A jury list was presented to the media. The first witness called will be Dr. Alane Olson, a medical examiner for the coroner's office.
10:22 a.m.
Bill Scott, left, Erik Scott's father, and others arrive for a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center September 22, 2010. Scott's younger brother Kevin is at far right.
Proceedings were expected to get under way this morning for a coroner’s inquest into the death of 38-year-old Erik Scott, shot by Metro Police officers July 10 at a Summerlin Costco.
By 10 a.m., the Scott family and their attorney, Ross Goodman, had arrived in the 16th floor courtroom at the Regional Justice Center in downtown Las Vegas.
Erik Scott's parents, Bill and Linda Scott and his younger brother, Kevin Scott, were wearing buttons with a photo of Erik Scott.
Seating in the courtroom was limited to 40 people, including the media, and another courtroom was set up on the first floor for an overflow. That courtroom has about 20 people in it, who are watching the proceedings on a TV screen.
Several members of the public were lingering outside the courtroom, hoping to get seats.
The family of Scott, a West Point and Duke University graduate with a concealed weapon permit, has denied Metro’s version of events and has been openly critical of the inquest process.
Metro has identified the three officers involved as William Mosher, 38, who has been with the department since June 2005; Joshua Stark, 28, with the department since September 2008; and Thomas Mendiola, 23, with the department since March 2009.
The men have been on paid administrative leave since the shooting, in accordance with department policy. All three are patrol officers assigned to the Northwest Area Command.
A jury of seven will determine whether the officers’ actions were justified, excusable or criminal. Coroner’s juries do not have to be unanimous in reaching their decisions.
The inquest will be broadcast live on the Clark County cable television station, Channel 4.
Comment removed by moderator. Off topic.
Isn't it convenient how often the video goes missing when it is really needed? We need officers to wear video recorders so we have a better view of these sorts of situations as they go down.
Hope these jurors can think for themselves instead of being just a rubber stamp.
I really thought this was a clear case of poorly trained (and too inexperienced officers) and overly aggressive use of force by the police. I still believe NONE of them should have fired with bystanders and should all be disciplined for those actions. BUT, the steroid admission by his family is troubling. Roid rage is well documented. I hope it was a prescription steroid to help injury recovery and not what it seems.
The attorney for the family admonished because he spoke up on an issue. This process is skewed to favor law enforcement. Why mock the truth? If the purpose of the inquest is to find out what really happened and whether there is legal responsibility then the process must be impartial and permit both sides to introduce evidence.
Otherwise, you get a skewed result. This process is nothing more than the same pattern - when law enforcement commit crimes, they get to investigate themselves. Foley!
Mr. Scott's actions during this incident are similar to incidents I read about that happened in Houston, Texas and Winona, Minnesota. I assume they'll attempt to compare all aspects of such similar incidences which could possibly lead to new warnings to be more careful in our use of prescription drugs.
So they shot him 5 times in the back. Welcome to Vegas.
I was watching the inquest on televison and the procedure is very interesting. So far its very dry, techicnal and judging from the pace it will be a very long process. If you get a chance to watch do so...
All must listen to the evidence.
Hard to believe that an operation like cosco doesn't have off=site back-up?
Lets get Scott the justice he deserves. These cops need to be fired.
Really, I don't care what was in his system. Unless he pointed a gun at someone, he didn't deserve to die.
PERIOD.
If this was the standard that probably 70% of las vegans would get shot if they found themselves in the same situation, because these days in vegas there are alot of people on xanax and pain killers.
I don't justify that Erik was using drugs, more than likely addicted too. I also don't justify killing the guy if he wasn't pointing his gun at the officers.
5 in the BACK? Seriously!
Oh BTW, I'm not a trusted commentor sun, neither is anyone else lol.
Actually what was in his system is crucial to whether or not he was legally carrying a concealed weapon. In Nevada one of the conditions of a CCW permit is that you not carry while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances (regardless of whether you have a prescription for them or not). The levels of morphine in his system would seem to indicate that he was not able to legally carry concealed at the time. It also tends to invalidate the family's assertions that "he would never do something like that" because those kind of character representations assume that a person is making decisions in a rational coherent state.
@WENDOR and everyone else talking about "drugs"
How many of you drink coffee in the morning before you head out the door for work? Or perhaps you show up and work and head straight to the break room for a cup of joe. Or when you have cramps or a fever you take aspirin. A drug is anything that alters you state of mind. Drinking a coca cola alters your body because it contains caffeine! Any tea drinkers out there?
Whether its prescription, illegal, medical, coffee, coke, WHATEVER-- that shouldn't matter. Does it matter if he was wasted out of his mind on alcohol? NO. Just because someone is drunk doesn't mean that they deserve to DIE. Death isn't justified like that and really shouldn't be. Unless he stabbed a police officer, then he has done NOTHING wrong.
Police shot a man in a public store. That is what is wrong. It doesn't matter what he took, what he was on, whether he had a weapon. He wasn't pointing the gun at them! He wasn't yelling "i have a bomb on me!" So why shoot the guy? It's despicable and horrific and I'm so ashamed of this state.
Judgement day will come and those officers will face the creator and confess their horrific sins.
If he even touched his gun after being confronted by police then he not only disregarded his training....he also, to use your terms, "deserved to die".
What I was pointing out is that Erik Scott was ALREADY breaking the law before confronting the police.
Had he followed his training - and the law - he would not have had any weapons on him and would still be alive today.
wendor;
I do not think your argument holds water. So, the police shot him because they knew his blood toxicity and he was "illegally" carrying the concealed weapon? I am not a legal expert but I do not think the police can shoot you for that.
From her testimony it actually sounds like this prescription drug combo would have "subdued" him and kept him from making fast movements.
Their only justification for shooting him is IF HE PUT THEM (or others) in a situation which their feared for their lives.
Whether he was drunk, high, on drugs prescribed by his doctor etc. DOES NOT matter. Only if he was threatening them matters and could justify their firing 7 bullets into him to subdue him and keep the lives of the people around him safe.
Whether he sold meth out of his house or drove too fast or did not keep his yard clean is kind of irrelevant.
OK, so based on your logic BrianJ, then if there are any corroborating witnesses that say that he drew his weapon, the issue is decided and the police acted correctly.
This evidence, which you don't care about, is all related to the family claiming that he was a reasonable man, a west point graduate, who would never, ever, ever do anything like what the police said he did. This evidence would seem to show that the claims by the family hold no water.
But if you don't care about any of that evidence, that's your choice.
I would prefer a video showing him drawing his weapon and putting the officers in a LIFE THREATENING situation. Yes that is what is pertinent here. And no, I WOULD NOT take "any" witness saying this (there must be A LOT saying the SAME thing). When shooting starts, people tend to get confused and many panic leaving "holes" in their memories. Your brain does not like memory gaps and are very open to suggestion and coaching to fill in their memories.
If they were not in that situation, they should not have drawn their weapons NOR fired their weapons INTO A CROWD like a bunch of idiots, let alone killed a man.
Whether he went to west point and duke or was a convicted felon should not matter. We DO NOT kill people based on who they are and the shooters DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ANY OF THIS INFORMATION.
As I was trying to point out, they most certainly DID NOT have a blood toxicity report before they pulled the trigger.
A lot of people who serve in the military take pain medications for service related injuries. Even if a military service person didn't serve in combat, lingering, chronic training injuries are fairly common.
You get to retire from the military after 20 years for a very good reason; you're body, generally, can't take much more punishment.
I sense a rubber stamp coming. . . The key question is what motivated the officers to draw weapons.
Simple possession of a firearm is *not* automatically a crime. People need to understand that.
If the police drew weapons on the basis of simple possession of a firearm and the person was not acting in a threating manner, then the shooting is "criminal".
The drug issue is a smokescreen.
Drugs or no drugs...What matters is, what did he do the last two or three seconds after the police started yelling at him. Did he raise his hands over his head???? Did he lie down ??? Or did he make a move that made the officers think he was reaching for a weapon ??? Because if they wait until they see a gun pointed at them, before they shoot, its too late for them. Action is much faster than re-action!!
What the HE77 does his use of prescription drugs have to do with what took place that day? Just tell us what happened, not who he was!!!! Such B.S.
Taking narcotics and carry a concealed weapon is a irration act. If he blatantly broke this law/rule, and admitted to taking cocaine, extasy, hgb, anabolic steriods, what other irrational acts would/did he committ ??
Were the officers involved tested for use of any drugs? ('Roid Rage' comes to mind.) If not, they should not be allowed to question Mr. Scott's use of LEGAL medication.
I'm looking forward to hearing from the witnesses who actually saw what went down. Also, what happened to the video? It got sent out of town and hasn't been returned?
Money_Is_Debt, As to the video the article already covered that, with witnesses planned to be called to elaborate:
"He told jurors several experts would testify about the efforts that were made to recover data from a failed Costco computer hard drive, which was recording the video camera pointed at the door. A call to repair the drive had been placed several days before the shooting, he said."
So Costco already knew there was an issue with the video getting recorded days before the event.
Channel 3 your live news feed suck!!! It's very concerning that he went to 3 different Dr's and was getting med's from outside of the U.S.
They should be periodic drug testing for all concealed weapon permit users. It's obvious that this man went doctor shopping for few complaints that were legitmate like the injury and few that were manufactured (like the abdominal pain). The history is consistent with drug seeking-not neccesarily addiction-who would go any lenth to get their daily ration of drugs. The erratic behavior inside the Costco can be explained on his drug use but the question remains as to what was the erratic behavior that he displayed outside the store? that he deserved two bullets in the front and five bullets in the back?
so convenient that their video was down and so convenient how the well-rehearsed Costco employee only saw a dazed-looking Erik Scott reaching for his gun after ignoring one officer's commands and remembering absolutely nothing else about the events that day
@BrianJ You make an excellent point. Where is the video? I know everyday as a former store manager, part of the job is checking the surveillance cameras and making sure they are working properly. If not, you make a note to your superiors about the DEFECTIVE camera, not after an incident happens. Don't we remember what happened in the Binion trial? Jurors can get paid off and often do. And yes in stressful situations they don't remember what has happened or sometimes hear things in the media and transform that into "fact" when they should really just say "I don't know." I think it's very suspicious that all of the sudden the video is missing. Even if the image quality is bad it would be nice to see or here what happened. OR if it magically "turned off" during the time of the shooting, it would be nice to see how he was erratically acting prior to all this hocus pocus.
"Kullberg said as she tried to leave the store, she saw Erik Scott staring at an officer after the officer had told him to get down on the ground "at least five times."
"He reached behind him and pulled out his gun and aimed it at the officer," Kullberg said. "At that time, the officer shot him."
Of course, this won't mean anything to those who have already convicted the cops in their own minds.
So just because some low level high school dropout Costco employee says it then it's true? Haven't you ever heard of people lying under oath? It happens ALL THE TIME. Look at OJ! And just because you swore with your hand on bible, doesn't mean anything. Most people are pagans so the bible means nothing to them.
Why even have this inquest......
we know how it will end....
I think they need to drug test all cops after they shoot someone (on or off duty).
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
shayne: Scott's family and lawyer have made an obvious attempt in the past several weeks to shape public opinion regarding Scott's character. They have said over and over that, given Scott's strong character, there is no way he could have pulled a gun on the police. They said numerous times that Scott was not an illegal drug user and that he did not use steroids.
Scott's own father and attorney made character a public issue. Now it turns out that much of what was said was not true (according to doctors). Character is an issue in every case involving a firearm death. In this case, its even more pronounced because Scott's father intended it to be that way. The DA would not be doing their job if they did not bring it up.
Why aren't the doctors and medical records of the SHOOTERS on public display too???
rebelfan, you say "If not, you make a note to your superiors about the DEFECTIVE camera, not after an incident happens."
Did you miss the part where they already said that "A call to repair the drive had been placed several days before the shooting..."
Yet another unnecessary death, courtesy of prescription drugs and the greedy pharmaceutical companies who manufacture this garbage.
> They [sic] should be periodic drug testing for all concealed weapon permit users.
including law enforcement.
interesting question at the end by one of the jurors -- re: the "clip" the last witness said she saw. Until he asked that I'd assumed she was talking about a spent casing but then she held up her hands in an iphone shape. Also, where'd she come up with the term "clip" since she knows nothing about about guns.
my opinion is the final witness was sorely mistaken in what she saw and unreliable. the final Doctor was treated hostilely in regard to talking about the deceased patterns (the talk of the rec drug was way over the line with the DA making 'statements of fact') and the officiating is decent, I guess. I also don't get how if Eric was that doped up and "dazed" that he was thrashing around moments earlier.
interesting viewing for sure.
I have been able to reach two conclusions from reading these comments.
1. There are people who will excuse any action by a police officer, regardless of how outrageous and egregious, simply because that action was committed by a police officer.
2. There are other people who will damn any action by a police officer, regardless of the level of justification and threat, simply beacuse that action was committed by a police officer.
@Lampshade. Funny, While I was at the Inquest today, I didn't hear any comments about wife-beating, pointing guns at neighbors, or any testimony about steroids from any of the Doctors who testifed today. I did hear testimony that he had some serious medical issues and was taking prescription medication for those issues. I did hear the testimony from the first witness who say a gun. She seemed a little confused though, she only saw one officer and heard one set of commands. I am wondering if we will hear from any of the witnesses who didn't see a gun? By the way, did you know that the guy who called 911 from Costco is not going to testify. He is not in the state. Wonder how that happened.
Can you explain to me how, according the Medical examiners testimony, there were 2 rounds in the front of the body and 5 rounds in the back, including one that entered below the buttocks, and ended up in the small intestine and large intestine? None of us at the Inquest could figure that one out.
Why would this woman lie? It seems Mr. Scott was VERY heavily medicated which may have clouded his judgement. I don't think that is at all unrealistic. Ms Kullberg stating that Erik was told 5 times to get on the ground and did not heed those warnings is bad. What is worse is that it sounds like he pulled his gun and aimed it at cops. Even worse. That will get you killed.
I just wish Erik had left his guns home that day. Sounds like he needed help with his drug abuse issues.
From very early on something didn't sound right with his behavior in Costco. For 911 to be called, someone must of noticed something strange.
He should not have had a gun. Sounds like he was taking far too much medication which clouded his judgement.
Tanker
It seems quite clear that Erik was not acting rationally. All in all this case sounds like he simply ignored or disobeyed police commands. The evidence seems pretty clear at this point. What does Ms. Kullberg have to gain by lying at an inquest? She seemed very believable.
It truly is a tragedy, but maybe something can be learned from this...by police and the public.
I don't see a cover up. I don't see police being trigger happy. I really don't see anything wrong with their actions.
The unfortunate part is that there is no video.
bobglover - I think what you've described are more observations than conclusions.
bobglover, you are correct, sir.
Pretty damning stuff, by the reading of it, regarding Eric Scott's drug use. Perhaps we'll learn more tomorrow, but it certainly would appear that he was taking enough meds to cloud any person's judgement, regardless of why he took it and who prescribed it to him. Not saying he WAS impaired, but in a Coroner's Inquest, that was a large dagger.
The question that begs asking is, "HOW DID IT COME TO THIS"?
Would the situation have turned out differently if there was a different TACTICAL APPROACH by the Officers in handling the situation from the get-go.
It will be very informative to hear "The Rest of The Story".
I watched some of the inquest on TV today and no one wants to lose a loved one no matter how the lose may happen. I can only imagine the pain and sorrow the Scott family are going through. With not being there and going on what I heard today so far Erik was dazed and confused but when he produced a weapon (that he had taken a class to carry) in a threatening matter, after being told to "Get Down" then I can only put the blame on him. There is not a person alive Office or Citizen that would not respond in the same matter if he/she were in fear of your life. Guns, Drugs (prescribed or not) Alcohol do not mix and Erik would be the first to tell you that if he was talking to any other person.
If you want to be distracted by the ongoing testominy regarding the medications you can follow that "pied piper" on down to the river.
We need more testimony on the shooting itself. I predict that the DA will not bring one single witness to the stand that refutes Metro's version. This is not a fact finding process. Furthermore, the Costco witness is unremarkable. She stated, however, that there were at least 100 people standing outside and another 30 or so people inside behind Erik. Will the DA call one witness that does not respresent Costco? Doubt it. This Inquest process is designed to clear the officers of criminal charges. period. That is not fact finding. If you have a goal in mind ahead of time: clearing the officers. That is not fact finding. That is an agenda.
Another STRICKING piece of the testimony from the Costco witness was that she only saw one officer. Also, from the exhibit of the store front, and what blows me away, is that the officer was between Erik and the Costco entrance. This means Erik was already outside the store walking away from the officer, WHO WAS IN FACT BEHIND ERIK. The officer either surprised him from behind or was hiding behind the pillar between the two entrances. Therefore Erik must have had to turn around back toward the store entrance in order to see the officer or find out who the officer was yelling at. What this also means is that the officer had to have seen Erik walking out and therefore could see Erik's back. He also must have seen that Erik did not have a gun in his hand at the time he confronted him or there never would have been anything to take out from behind his back as we hear the Costco employee alluding to. The officer therefore had the upper hand the whole time- The element of surprise. He could have watched Erik walk all the way out to the car as he had NO GUN IN HIS HAND at that moment. In the military we call this an ambush.
Remember this, Erik was pointed out by another costco employee who was following him from behind. This witness stated nothing along these lines. Yet other witnesses have stated this. That Costco employee must have seen the officer lying in wait behind the pillar between the entrances (because he called 911 so he knew) whereas Erik didn't know what was about to go down. .......cont'd
continued from previous post.......
If someone is yelling something at you from behind, how the hell do you know who they are yelling at you? This is incredible. Mr DA, you have no idea what you just revealed to us today with this lackluster witness.
Erik was not a threat when leaving the store. Erik was not waving a gun around in the store. Erik was already leaving the store. Customers were around Erik and the officer came up and confronted him from behind. The Costco employee also stated that this all occurred in a matter of seconds and yet also states that Erik stopped and stared at the officer for awhile. Which is it lady? Was it a few seconds or was it "awhile." She also stated that he pulled a gun out behind of his back with his right hand while she was on the opposite side of him. And yet she doesn't know if it was in its holster, if it was a semi-automatic, if it was a revolver, what color it was and on and on. My question is, how does she even know it was a gun?
Here is a question I would have asked her: DO YOU WEAR GLASSES? WERE YOU WEARING YOUR GLASSES THAT DAY? YOU'RE NOT WEARING GLASSES RIGHT NOW. DO YOU WEAR CONTACTS? DO YOU HAVE 20/20 VISION?
The lady has no idea if the gun Erik had was a semi or revolver, yet she knows the term "clip."
Who on God's green earth knows what a clip is but does not know the difference between a semi and a revolver. The witness states that Erick had nothing in his hands. And yet we keep hearing of this mysterious "zipper pouch" where he had a second gun? Where was the zipper pouch at? If he had nothing in his hands where would this zipper pouch with the second gun be?
Answer these damn questions Mr District Attorney. You are insulting my intelligence!!!!
Halo. He was TOLD AT LEAST 5 TIMES TO GET DOWN. he did not. He then pointed a weapon at officer.
You are theorizing to no end. Deal with the factual statements. I don't care if it was "a while or a few seconds"....
Erik CLEARLY did not obey commands....at least 5 times!!!
His drug level was considered lethal. Is it just possible, just the tiny bit possible that he was in a clouded haze and his judgment was impaired??
Wow...the more I read the more I think this was a typical Vegas script abuser who had no idea what kind of situation he was in. There is not doubt this will be justifiable or excusable. No matter what other witnesses say. The medical examiner put the nail in the coffin when said he had "lethal" doses of prescription drugs in his system. End of story. Doesn't matter if Scott did nothing wrong, the drugs in his system will put doubts in the jurors mind and they will find Metro justified.
Obviously those of you posting comments don't know a thing about drug addicts and the havoc they wreak upon themselves, the people they love and so on... Vegas_tom states he doesn't get how Eric could have been doped up and dazed but could be thrashing around moments earlier. My ex-husband was a prescription drug abuser and trust me, his behavior could be very erratic. His parents were in denial and my family and friends were confused, because they saw what they wanted to see or only what was on the surface -- they didn't live day in and day out with the addict. My ex physically attacked police officers attempting to subdue him at a mall when his behavior became erratic while shopping for a Christmas gift for me. He apparently popped some pills and had a few drinks and then boom nicest guy in the world turns in to a guy walking around a mall dazed and acting erratically, scaring people who were xmas shopping. At the time of that incident, I thought he was suffering from depression and drinking way too much, so I attributed his erratic behavior to those factors. It wasn't until a few months later when he flipped out and swallowed a bottle of pills in front of me, while screaming like a mad man did I find out about the drugs (there were probably 20 bottles of varying prescriptions from various doctors he saw -- the psychologist for the depression, the orthopedic surgeon for the knee and arm injury, and then whatever doctor he could find to prescribe him drugs). Don't just assume because Eric was by all accounts a nice guy loved by many people that he wasn't a danger to himself and others. I can't even fathom what would have happened had my ex owned or carried a gun. The facts are that Eric had a lethal dose of drugs in his system and was carrying a gun in a store full of people. God only knows what was going through his mind.
The idea that this officer was supposed to wait until Erik walked to his car and then confront him is stupid. Who is to say he couldn't crouch down behind cars or worse..jump in his car and take off. Possibly running over police.
Erik was so doped up it should have killed him. It's a sad story, but this is not police misconduct. This is public misconduct. It got him killed. A tragedy, but Mr. Scott bears a huge portion of the blame. Carrying 2 guns!!?? And in a daze.
rebel fan 19. you are truly an idiot! are you serious?You really think it doesn't matter if he was all hopped up on drugs or not? Cops are just supposed to show up and it doesn't matter if he points a gun at them because he is out of his mind on all the pain killers and whatever else he was on? Cops go to work and risk their life every day. They do not set out to just kill people even though there are plenty of cop haters who would say otherwise on this site. The guy had 2 guns at Costco and was acting like a jerk and behaving erratically and had huge amounts of drugs in his system. What do you think the cops should do? Wait until he shoots them or someone else. If he would have shot someone else, you haters would be blaming that on Metro too. You think just because he is a nice looking WestPoint grad he would never do such a thing. That's what every parent and friend says about a murderer or child rapist. He could never have done such a thing!! I agree, it is hard to look at him and think that something like this could happen to a guy like him, but I bet you wouldn't have imagined that he was a drugee either. He may have had some legit pain, but he was clearly a drug seeker with a problem. It will be interesting to hear his girlfriends testimony, but I am sure she will not be forthcoming because of her feelings for him and so not to hurt his family.
He had freaking amphetamines in his blood. Those aren't used for back pain or any other condition he supposedly had.
He lit up that drug test like a Christmas tree.
I believe every word of Metro's story He was wasted on drugs, did the wrong thing at the wrong time and got himself killed. Suicide by cop.
OK. So, where's the video?
If Sheriff Gillespie told me it was hot and sunny in Las Vegas, I wouldn't believe him at this point. That's the problem.
Witnesses can be coerced, over-coached, or just plain mistaken. This is why you have defense attorneys. This Inquest procedure is a farce. Nothing will be learned from the encounter and the rubber stamp will, once again, fall on the paper.
I have no doubt that Scott's medical conditions probably impacted his decision making ability. If his pain was not properly managed, he shouldn't have been carrying a weapon.
However, this Inquest appears to be a one-sided character assaination built solely to vindicate the police. The sad part is that by not truly analyzing police actions, this "Inquest" is putting officers in danger. If you don't learn from your mistakes, you are doomed to repeat them.
I can only hope the voters of Las Vegas send a message to the corrupt kingmakers in our version Tammany Hall and throw Gillespie out in November. Aside from this incident, I'm not happy with the rapid decay of our police during his tenure.
Once again, we have to take Las Vegas back from the Mob. Only this time, the "Mob" consists of the Fortune 500 gaming companies. The people of Las Vegas elect the Sheriff, not a select group of wealthy casino owners.
If we want to revitalize our economy and build a real economy, the first step is revamping the leadership our police department and rebuilding trust in our police. We have to show Las Vegas is a real city where you can bring your real business and be safe.
@TomD1228
What I am asking for is for the DA to stop isulting my intelligence. I don't want to know anything but what actually happened during the confrontation. I keep hearing of zipper pouches and second guns, and here we have one Costco witness who you and I know is an "interested" party to the DA, Metro and Costco- who says Erik had nothing else in his hands on his way out. We have one Costco witness out of hundreds of bystanders. Does the DA expect anyone to buy this as a rubber stamp "JUSTIFIED?" If the officers were justified then please demonstrate it with an impatial investigation into the facts. Period. What the heck is so mysterious about that?
Up to this point we have heard that Erik was acting erratic and waving a gun and even this Costco employee cannot substantiate this. We have clear evidence that Erik was outside the damn store and the officer was behind him. Go back and look at the exhibit (Entrance, then officer, then Erik Scott). You have a witness saying she only saw one officer and yet three are being examined here. You have a witness that is not even sure if the gun was a semi-automatic, revolver, holstered, unholstered, black, blued, nickel or whatever and yet she is throwing words around like "clip." She said she saw the clip fall to the ground. Did the DA even ask her how many shots she heard? No he did not. That is a pretty common question.
Come on man. A full day of testimony regarding his prescription pain medications in an attempt to explain what? That the officer snuck up behind him and began barking orders when it was obvious he was not a threat to anyone at that time. This is the most ridiculous "fact finding" farse I have ever laid eyes upon.
Convince me clearly and without prejudice using facts that are pertinent to the need to use deadly force. Don't waste my time by trying to make me beleieve such by offering tertiary information.
Has anyone ever snuck up behind you and then began shouting orders when you were in a crowd of people? How would you know that that person was shouting at you? Sorry but this Costco witness has now raised more questions than answers.
Wow. On one hand you have a guy strapped with two pistols, completely over-medicated on narcotics, admittedly suffering from depression, and disobeying police orders.
On the other hand you have a Costco employee, who does not know either Scott or the cops, and who seems to have zero motivation to lie.
Yet somehow the Costco employee is less credible.
It was mentioned that Erik Scott had prescriptions for the morphine and hydrocodone, but the last time he had seen Dr. Kim or Dr. Gnoyski was in February?? They don't write Morphine more than a month at a time. Where was he getting it?? Who else was writing him scripts?
For the record, I think the shooting probably was justified, but I don't think there's been nearly the level of investigation required to determine that as fact.
The actions leading up to the shooting, the tactics used, and, especially, the post-incident evidence mishandling all point to poor police procedures and scene management.
The Inquest process needs to be revamped. I think the burden of proof should be on the police to prove a shooting is justified. There needs to be a detailed, truly balanced analysis of every shooting incident. This is important for the safety of other officers and the general public.
Since the "defendant" was denied his/her right to trial, why not have something like a trial after-the-fact?
Chunky says:
Mr. Scott created this problem; he's the common denominator through his history, drug abuse, failure to follow the laws of CCW, starting some kind of problem in Costco, ignoring direct orders from an armed police officer and then pointing a gun at an armed police officer.
That's what Chunky thinks!
A single witness who is albeit a part time employee of Costco has to be considered a hostile witness. What exactly was the location of the officers and Erik Scott. She should be made to explain this on a chalk board. If She can succintly remember his expression she should be able to give the details of everyones location and her vantage point. She heard "an officer yell atleast five times"-Where was the officer? in front or behind Erik Scott? In a Court of law this kind of testimony would be scrutinized but an inquest is a differnet ballgame altogether. So far the testimony appears to be damaging to Erik Scott whether this ware facts or not.
I feel bad for the Scott family, its hard for them to admit that their son who they loved so much caused his own death. It sounds like they think the police went to Costco and shot their son for no apparent reason. I guess the cops were lucky he just happened to have gun on him. Mr Scott was in the Army, I would like to know how long he would have waited if someone was pointing a gun at him before firing. I think Mr. Scott was tired of the pain and worn out from the drugs. Being as smart as he was, he knew if he pointed his gun at the police of even reached for it he would soon be out of his torment. The Scott family will sue in civil court, but they still wont be heard. Metro will settle because Sheriff Gillespie wont want spend the money to clear his officers names when he can settle for much less. The Scott family will never accept that their son is gone and in such a tragic way. The Scott family, the officers and their families, and the tax payers all have lost on this one. I hope that the Scott family can accept what really happened so they can live out their lives without the hatred they have the burden of carrying.
@Sassy. At the time of his death, he was still an active patient of Dr. Gynoski. As the Dr testified, he had an appointment scheduled for July 12.
When this gets to a civil or federal trial the Costco lady's testimony will be worthless. When questioned by either the federal attorney or Scott's family's attorney she is toast.
Floyd:
A part-time, $10.00 an hour Costco employee is a hostile witness? Are you kidding? Why? So you think we should assume that an older lady is willing to commit a felony and lie to the court for a $10.00 an hour job?
And how is she even protecting Costco? If the policemen intentionally shot Scott without any provocation (as Scott's attorney claims), why should Coscto be liable? All Costco did was call the cops. Since when did calling the cops, and nothing more, make a defendant liable for wrongful death? So next time a store owner thinks about calling the police to their store they have to worry about getting slapped with a wrongful death jury verdict?
There are a lot of confused people commenting about this issue.
Comment removed by moderator. Comment was in all caps.
You got it Youandme.
As for that point I made about confused people commenting about this issue, you just cemented it.
Chunky says:
He thinks Mr. Kullberg was a very credible witness with no reason or motive to tell anything other than what she could remember. It seems as if we're talking a few split seconds where there's a commotion, a police officer shouting someone down, a crazed man pointing a gun at the police officer standing four feet away from her and then deafening gunshots.
She must have been terrified and shocked to see this unfold in front of her when a few minutes earlier she's serving samples of food in the store.
Good for her but sadly Mr. Scott's decisions and actions that day have probably scarred Ms. Kullberg and a host of other people for life. He made the decision to end his but left the rest of his friends, family and community with a huge mess.
That's what Chunky thinks!
Chunky says:
Correction: "Ms. Kullberg"
A lot of posters are damning Metro because Mr Scott was shot in the back but we haven't heard where the 3 policemen were positioned in the shooting!
Might one of the officers been behind him, seen his acting as a danger to the other 2 officers and took steps to eliminate that danger?
In the real world we don't always 'face down our man' on main street at high noon!
I think that the world is teaming with drug addicted people wandering the streets, working, shopping, presiding over courts, working high steel, protecting us and even putting out fires and saving us. There are millions of them. They are everywhere in society. Their attention span is a second or two behind everyone else. Same as someone talking on a cell phone. Effective Police Training is what failed in this case. Not the drug makers, Doctors, camera installers, and most importantly, not Erik Scott.
So far the facts are that he was "acting erratic" and his blood level of morpine and hydrocodone were five times the normal. The Security person at Costco called 911, since she might have contemplated trouble or she wanted reinforcement or she felt inadequate to contain the situation or she was just obeying policy. We have nothing (so far) to prove that he continued to show "erratic behaviour" when he walked out of Costco. We have a witness who could have been easily dismissed as hostile durng discovery process-which is lacking in an Inquest-and even if was not declared hostile, her testimony would have been torn apart in a real Court proccedings by the defense attorney. According the reports,few saw gun in his hand and few didn't but one thing they must have heard-is an officer shouting orders to Erik Scott.
Wow, the cop hating task force is working overtime today. LMAO.
Let's look at the facts of the inquest they kept begging to get ASAP (which doesn't make sense as wouldn't doing it too fast results in a less quality inquest?)
-Scott had a history of domestic abuse and aggressive behavior. Although this shows that Scott was an aggressive thug I believe it has no bearing in the current shooting, as does the Scott defense force. Funny how they want to bring up the past of officers though....Guess they want it both ways (and LOL to those arguing the cops' "lack of experience on the job").
-Scott was an obvious drug abuser. The dude had more drugs in him than Walgreens. Does this mean he deserved to be shot? Of course not! However, this information is important for the situation. Obviously somebody higher than a kite is gonna act erratic. We have reports of him acting erratic earlier and that is why 911 was called. Then some people say "there is no evidence he was acting erratic later". Well....there is a witness that said so (more in a bit) and why would he stop acting erratic all of a sudden? Exaclty, he wouldn't. Because he was a drug abuser he acted stupidly by grabbing for his gun and got shot. End of story.
-The witness: pretty much ends it all there. I love how all the cop haters act like she is a hostile witness. Ok, explain to me how she is hostile and explain what law school you graduated from to tell me that? LOL!
The fact of this all is haters gonna hate. Some people are so blinded for their hate for authority they can't view anything in an objective matter. I'm glad to have an intellect that lets me take in all the facts and make judgments based on that. I've gotta say that anybody excusing Scott and making up excuses right now is just making a fool of themselves. I will continue to watch the inquest with an open mind and make my judgment based on ALL the evidence (which so far points to a justified shooting).
By the way, to all the cop haters: do you really think cops enjoy shooting people? This is a series question I would like answered.
redmage: you said:
"I will continue to watch the inquest with an open mind and make my judgment based on ALL the evidence" and "By the way, to all the cop haters: do you really think cops enjoy shooting people? This is a series question I would like answered."
Those comments are what makes your take irrelevant. Keep laughing.
This is very interesting that this has become a question of Erik Scott or Metro? what about the Costco employees themselves? What happened inside the store that made them call the police insisted that a crazed madman with a gun was inciting panic in the store? Was it really necessary to call the police versus attempting to contain the situation and handle it discreetly?
Why was Scott carrying TWO handguns??
If no one has made the point at this time, some clarification needs to be made regarding "steroids." The only steroid I've seen mentioned so far is prednisone. This is NOT an anabolic steroid. It is a corticosteroid. It is, essentially, a feminizing hormone. It builds fat and wastes muscle. It is not a testosterone analog! It's the same class of steroids used by dermatologists to treat skin rashes, poison ivy, etc.
As to the other drugs found in his system, I hope there's an independent analysis being done by the family. Besides that, this entire line of argument regarding medication smacks of character assassination. Mudslinging. Prove he was acting inappropriately, or accept the fact that plenty of habituated pain patients can tolerate HUGE levels opiates and function very well. And learn to spell "Xanax."
This entire case is very troubling to me. The government has shot a man for carrying a firearm. This is entirely antithetical to our Constitution, and to the oaths sworn by the officers involved.
I understand the hard drive may have been damaged. I believe it's absolutely uncanny, and most likely a lie, but it's "good enough" to be believable in court, if they do in fact have documentation of having requested repair of the system prior to Mr. Scott being gunned down. What I don't understand is why we haven't heard 911 tapes or seen the issue of dashcam footage released.