Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Metro Police Officer William Mosher testifies about shooting Erik Scott during a coroner’s inquest at the Regional Justice Center Thursday, September 23, 2010.
By Cara McCoy 
, Dave Toplikar (contact)
Published Thursday, Sept. 23, 2010 | 9:43 a.m.
Updated Thursday, Sept. 23, 2010 | 5:29 p.m.
Related stories
Audio Clip
- Shai Lierley on the phone with dispatchers
- You need to upgrade your Flash Player
Audio Clip
- Unidentified caller from within Costco talking to dispatchers
- You need to upgrade your Flash Player
Audio Clip
- Metro Police radio traffic during the July 10 officer-involved shooting that left Erik Scott dead
- You need to upgrade your Flash Player
5:22 p.m.
Justice of the Peace Tony Abbatangelo has recessed the coroner's inquest for the day. The inquest will resume at 8 a.m. Friday.
5:19 p.m.
Metro Officer William Mosher, one of the officers involved in the shooting of Erik Scott, testified this afternoon at the coroner's inquest.
Prior to the shooting, Mosher said he had been told over the police radio that Scott was a Green Beret, had been acting erratically, was throwing merchandise around, appeared to be high on narcotics, had a gun and would not leave the store.
Mosher said the fact that Scott was a Green Beret concerned him as he was driving toward the store because he knew Scott would be trained to use small arms and tactics. He said he was also worried because it was a Saturday afternoon and 1,000 people could be at the store.
Mosher said he came to the door of Costco with his gun drawn because of what he had been told about Scott.
Mosher said Scott was pointed out to him by a Costco employee. He said Scott's only words to him were that he had a gun.
Mosher said he saw Scott had bloodshot eyes. He told Scott to show his hands and to put his weapon down twice, but Scott wouldn't comply, he said.
Scott responded by pulling out his gun, Mosher said. Mosher saw the gun being raised in his direction.
"He was a deadly threat with that weapon in his hand," Mosher said.
Mosher said at that point, fearing for his own safety, fearing for the safety of the other officers and fearing for the safety of the crowd, "I fired my weapon at center body mass."
He said he shot twice, then stopped. He said Scott didn't fall immediately. Then he heard the other two officers also shoot.
Mosher, 38, has been with the department since June 2005. Other officers involved in the shooting are Joshua Stark, 28, with the department since September 2008, and Thomas Mendiola, 23, with the department since March 2009.
4:17 p.m.
Peter Calos, a Metro homicide detective who was conducting the investigation into the police shooting of Erik Scott, was continuing to show video at the Summerlin Costco this afternoon.
Calos demonstrated that a camera that shows the front doors of Costco, where the fatal shooting occurred, was active until it crashed about 2:14 p.m. on July 8, two days before the shooting.
"This is when the internal drive system fails," Calos said.
The camera didn't record any events from that time until the system was rebooted about 5:30 p.m. on July 10, after the shooting took place, he said.
3:58 p.m.
Video was being shown this afternoon from Summerlin Costco surveillance video cameras recorded the afternoon of July 10, the date Erik Scott was shot by Metro Police.
Peter Calos, a Metro homicide detective who was conducting the investigation into the shooting, was explaining the video, which showed the parking lot around the time of the shooting.
He said the video showed the first patrol car pull into Costco. But he said the angle of the camera doesn't show the doors of the building, which is where the fatal shooting took place.
3:34 p.m.
Brian Wyche, a forensic multimedia analyst for Metro Police, is testifying about efforts to recover the video from the hard drive at Costco.
Wyche said he was called at 5:17 p.m. July 10, the day of the fatal shooting. A Costco employee took him to the video surveillance room, where he looked at the recording system.
He said he met with Shai Lierley, a Costco loss prevention supervisor who testified earlier today, who told him the system appeared to have an error. He couldn't find video files recorded for that day.
Wyche said he tried to go into the hard drive the "back way" to see if he could find the files in a folder.
"I couldn't see any of those files because I couldn't get into that folder. It said 'unknown error,'" Wyche said.
He tried to reboot the system. From about 2:15 p.m. July 8 to roughly 5:15 p.m. July 10, there were no files recorded. Police were called to Costco at 12:47 p.m. July 10.
Wyche said if he would have found the files, he would have downloaded them to a portable flash drive for detectives.
He explained the steps he had gone through with another detective.
"At that point I was done," Wyche said.
3:14 p.m.
Metro Police forensic multimedia analyst Brian Wyche has taken the stand.
Wyche follows a five-minute recess called by Justice of the Peace Tony Abbatangelo.
The break followed testimony from three witnesses this afternoon about the corrupt hard drive at the Summerlin Costco that was thought to have contained a video recording showing three Metro Police officers shooting and killing Erik Scott.
According to the testimony, some files from July 10 have been recovered. The digital files recorder had been reported to be faulty a few days earlier.
It wasn't clear this afternoon what files were recovered.
2:50 p.m.
Jody Okawaki, a special agent with the U.S. Secret Service, testifies during a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center Thursday, September 23, 2010.
Afternoon testimony has centered on the corrupt hard drive at Costco that is thought to contain the digital video recording that might show Metro officers shooting Erik Scott.
Jody Okawaki, a special agent with the U.S. Secret Service who is a computer forensic examiner, was the next witness at the coroner's inquest into the July 10 shooting death.
Okawki said she found some files from July 10, but the hard drive didn't contain files on July 9.
She said they took the hard drive Seagate Recovery Service to help recover the data.
David Teigen, of Seagate, said in earlier testimony they were able to get about 600 gigabytes of data from the hard drive.
Jason Swords, of Vegas Valley Locking Systems, testifies during a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center Thursday, September 23, 2010.
Jason Swords, of Vegas Valley Locking Systems, said his company received a call from Shai Lierley, a Costco employee, on July 8 that the digital video recorder Vegas Valley had installed at Costco was locking up.
Swords said the drive was brought to him July 12 so he could try to recover the data, but he was unsuccessful at recovering any data.
"There was a physical problem with the hard drive. I could hear it clicking," he said.
Swords said after he couldn't recover the data, he returned the DVR over to Lierley.
2:17 p.m.
Audio problems were plaguing the overflow courtroom for a second time today.
Voices from another courtroom were overriding the audio from the courtroom where the coroner's inquest proceedings were taking place.
The public and some members of the media are in the overflow courtroom. There are only 40 seats in the inquest room and those are mostly being reserved for interested parties, such as Scott's immediate family members, although several members of the media also are in the courtroom.
"This is supposed to be a public hearing. We deserve better," a member of the public watching the proceedings told a court service technician.
The technician said someone had taken a wireless microphone from the courtroom and was using it in an adjoining courtroom. The problem was resolved within a few minutes.
1:50 p.m.
David Teigen, of Seagate Recovery Services, testifies during a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center Thursday, September 23, 2010.
Justice of the Peace Tony Abbatangelo has reconvened this afternoon's session of the coroner's inquest into the Metro Police shooting of Erik Scott July 10 at the Summerlin Costco.
Abbatangelo was reading questions into the record that he had discarded that were submitted to witnesses by interested parties in the case, which includes Scott's family and their attorney, Ross Goodman.
The judge was also explaining why he didn't allow each question. Most of his reasons are that they were irrelevant or they had been asked and answered in an earlier question.
Abbatangelo said Friday's session will begin at 8 a.m. and last all day (Wednesday began at 10 a.m., today began at 9 a.m.). He said that based on the pace of the proceedings the inquest will also continue on Saturday, but that it will not meet on Sunday or Monday.
The first witness for the afternoon session is David Teigen, who is employed by Seagate Recovery Service in Santa Clara, Calif., which does recovery work on hard drives.
Teigen was explaining the data he was asked to recover from the Summerlin Costco. The hard drive contains surveillance video that might show the events leading up to Scott being shot by three Metro Police officers.
Officials have said the video was corrupted.
12:38 p.m.
The coroner's inquest in the shooting death of Erik Scott by Metro Police broke for lunch at about 12:30 p.m.
Jurors were told to return in one hour to resume proceedings. The judge and attorneys will reconvene 10 minutes early so the judge can read questions into the official record from interested parties that weren't asked during the proceedings.
More than 300 questions have been submitted by interested parties, which includes the Scott family and their lawyer, Ross Goodman.
The transcript of a 911 tape is displayed during a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center Thursday, September 23, 2010.
12:28 p.m.
Questioning of Shai Lierley, a Summerlin Costco employee who called a 911 dispatcher about Erik Scott, was continuing into the noon hour.
Lierley was being asked more details about his account of the events that led to the police confrontation with Scott, and Scott being shot twice in the front and five times in the back and buttocks.
Lierley, whose job is to spot shoplifters, said he thought Scott was trying to stuff items into a neoprene lunch bag to conceal them so he wouldn't have to pay for them.
Scott said another employee, Vince Lopez, approached Scott and asked him if he needed help, but Scott told him he was trying to get items, such as a steel bottle and a cold pack, to fit into the bag.
Scott was drawing attention to himself by pacing back and forth, tearing packaging off the bottles and tossing the bags around, Lierley said. However, Scott did nothing illegal, he said.
Lierley said Scott was approached by employees again when he noticed that Scott had a firearm in his waistband.
Scott's reaction to being told about a no-firearms policy at Costco -- jumping up, saying he was a Green Beret and cursing -- led employees to walk away and make a 911 call, Lierley said.
11:44 a.m.
The 911 dispatch tape of the July 10 shooting death of Erik Scott at the Summerlin Costco was played to jurors today during the coroner's inquest into whether officers where justified in shooting him.
The 911 tape contained the voice of Shai Lierley, a Costco loss prevention supervisor, who was describing to the dispatcher what Scott was doing in the store.
Lierley had testified before the 911 tape was played about the incidents leading up to the shooting.
After Lierley and another manager saw the gun and told Scott he couldn't have a firearm in the store, Scott became agitated, Lierley testified.
"'I'm a Green Beret. You need to read the (expletive) Constitution,'" Lierley said Scott told them. "He was angry. He snapped up real quick."
Lierley, a floor walker whose job was to spot shoplifters, explained to the dispatcher that Scott had a firearm and refused to leave when asked. Lierley told the dispatcher that Scott had told him he had a right to carry it.
Scott told his girlfriend they were trying to take his firearm from him. His girlfriend then told him the store was being evacuated, so the two of them started to leave together, Lierley said.
Shai Lierley, a Costco loss prevention supervisor, demonstrates how Erik Scott brought his gun on an officer as he testifies during a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center Thursday, September 23, 2010.
Eventually, Scott began walking separately from his girlfriend and from time to time touched his firearm, Lierley said. Lierley said before police arrived he also noticed that Scott stumbled once as he walked.
Lierley said he followed Scott outside the door and pointed him out to an officer standing at the exit. There also were two other officers outside.
The officer came up behind Scott and touched him on the elbow, Lierley said. That led Scott to pull away, turn and face the officer and lift up his left hand.
Scott's right hand went back to his waistband and he began tugging at his gun, Lierley said.
Lierley said he distinctly remembered the officer continuing to yell, "Sir, drop the firearm." Jurors heard the following in the 911 call: "Put your hands where I can see them now. Drop it! Get on the ground! Get on the ground!"
Scott eventually pulled the gun out and when he lifted the barrel and began to point it at the officer, the officer shot him, Lierley said.
Scott was hit in the chest and immediately dropped his firearm, Lierley said. Scott then fell to the ground, Lierley said.
"Then I just heard a couple of more shots," Lierley said. He said he saw Scott move on the ground and heard more shots. "It was one after another. ... It was real quick, less than a second."
The officer then handcuffed Scott, Lierley said.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent asked Lierley if Scott was pulling the gun out to hand it to the officer, but Lierley said he wasn't.
During the incident, Scott didn't say anything to the police officer, Lierley said.
As the audio recording of the dispatch call was made, shots can be heard, but it was difficult to distinguish how many shots were fired.
The medical examiner who did the autopsy on Scott said there were two shots that hit Scott from the front and five that hit him on his back and buttocks from the rear.
The transcript of a 911 tape is displayed during a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center Thursday, September 23, 2010.
11:01 a.m.
Shai Lierley, a Costco loss prevention supervisor, said Scott was acting "erratically" in an aisle, pacing back and forth, mumbling to himself.
Lierley said he began watching Scott for a few minutes as he was putting steel bottles into a neoprene bag, tearing them from their cardboard containers.
He said he eventually noticed Scott had a firearm in his waistband, so he and another employee approached Scott and told him Costco had a policy against firearms in the store and he would have to leave.
Lierley said Scott jumped up and told him he was a Green Beret and had the constitutional right to carry it.
Lierley then called a 911 dispatcher. The 911 audio recording, with a transcript, was being played to jurors.
10:43 a.m.
The next witness in the coroner's inquest into the death of Erik Scott is Shai Lierley, a loss prevention supervisor at Costco.
Lierley testified that he spotted Scott in an aisle in Costco and he was acting strangely, leading him to keep watch on him.
He explained the events that led him to call police about Scott. Lierley was working in plain-clothes at Costco to prevent thefts.
Steven Novotny demonstrates how Erik Scott pointed a gun at him and his dog as he testifies during a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center Thursday, September 23, 2010. Novotny said the event occurred after his dog got loose and bit Scott.
10:12 a.m.
Steven Novotny said his dog, a 70- to 75-pound chow-pitbull-lab-rottweiler mix, bit Scott March 9, 2010. Scott then pulled a gun on his dog, then later pointed a gun at him, said.
Novotny said after the dog had bitten Scott, he went to confront Scott, and Scott threatened him with a gun.
"I thought I was going to get shot because of a dog bite," Novotny testified.
Novotny said that made him angry.
"When he pointed the gun at me, yes I did (get angry). But afterwards, I cooled off," Novotny said. "I was mad because he pointed a gun at me and he threatened to shoot me."
Scott apologized and said he was sorry for the incident. Novotny said he offered to pay for Scott's hospital bill from the dog bite, but Scott left.
Novotny said he wasn't fearful of confronting Scott, "because I was also carrying."
Novotny said he didn't call police about the incident because he didn't have a good description of Scott at the time.
Animal control eventually came to pick up Novotny's dog.
Bill Scott, right, father of Erik Scott, talks with attorney Ross Goodman as a recording of a 911 tape between Costco employee Shai Lierley and Metro Police dispatch is played during a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center Thursday, September 23, 2010.
9:43 a.m.
The second day of testimony has begun in the coroner's inquest into the Metro Police shooting death of Erik Scott on July 10 at the Summerlin Costco.
The first person to testify is Steven Novotny, who alleges Scott pulled a gun on his dog on March 9 this year. Novotny said the dog had bitten Scott.
"Mr. Scott said 'you're lucky I didn't shoot you and your (expletive) dog,'" Novotny testified.
Novotny said Scott was pointing his gun at Novotny when the incident occurred.
Court officials, who have restricted access to the 40-seat courtroom for interested parties and limited media, were having technical problems to start the day.
Although there was a TV feed coming into the overflow courtroom set up for media and the public, something was wrong with the audio feed.
Reporters in the overflow room covering the inquest and members of the public hoping to hear it couldn't do so for the first portion of testimony from today's first witness.
The audio was restored about 9:35 p.m., about 15 minutes into the testimony from Novotny.
The inquest is expected to last through at least the end of the day Friday and may continue onto another day.
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)
I would be thoroughly pissed off too if a dog bit me..I might even pull my gun if I felt threatened. Would I point it at the owner? No.
Based on what we are hearing during this inquest...Erik Scott should not have owned a gun. Neither should this witness.
This witness should have called the police right away. He went back for his gun? This is why people get killed.
Disagree. The guy was sleeping. The dog got out. We have no idea why it bit Erik. The owner admitted that the dog bit another dog before. It is also part pit bull.
I have no reason to believe that Erik did something to get bit. What he did afterwards is troublesome. I don't have an issue pinning the dog or aiming his gun at it if he felt threatened...but you don't point the gun at a person.
How is any of this relevant to what happened the day he was confronted by officers in Summerlin?
From a defense perspective (defense of the cops), I understand why it's being introduced.
But none of the contemporary accounts of the shooting indicated that any time he 'threatened' anyone with a gun.
Very disturbing. I'm 110% pro-police, but this process is a joke.
guys with guns always think they're 'tuff' and above the law.
If he pulled that gun on me, better believe cops would be there, and he would've been shot by the cops then, instead of now.
Wait I am confused. There was a dog inside or outside of Costco that day? Or are they saying that his gun was STILL out of the holster from March 9th all the way to the exit at costco?
Sorry for the sarcasm but the point of this is? It is irrelevant. Only relevant testimony is if HE DREW HIS GUN WHEN HE WAS SHOT. The rest is a smokescreen.
I guess when metro shoots me, they will call sevenhills to the stand to testify that I am a bad guy because I did not agree with him all the time.... No wait, they cannot call him because he is not "a trusted poster".......
"..problems with the audio feed..." Perhaps they are using the same out of state firm that can't supply the Costco video.
Sounds to me like erratic behavior in Costco. Ripping tags off merchandise?
Told Costco doesn't allow guns. Erik get belligerent.
Sorry. End of story. Erik was being a class a jerk off.
Asked to leave and he swears at employee?
For all those who questioned why 911 had to be called. I think you've gotten your answer.
"I'm a fcuking green beret, go read the constitution"
Terrible. He should have left quietly. His actions contributed to his death..lock stock and barrel
TomD;
I am not fully versed in Nevada State Law, but I don't believe being a "class jerk off" is a justification for shooting someone. I think it is irrelevant. At this point, police would NOT roll in mass with urgency to expel a "class jerk off" out of a store. Wait and see if the situation was not exaggerated which lead the inexperienced "patrolmen" (not trained SWAT) to come to the scene frightened and with their adrenaline pumping.
What's the point of this testimony? Well, to show that Scott was unstable/aggressive enough to pull a gun on another human being. Luckily I'm a level headed person. I would NEVER have pulled a gun on another human being because a dog bit me. I value human life too much for that. Scott did it once in the past, he did it again in front of the cops as the witness stated yesterday. Shooting justified.
I think if a pitbull bit me I would be pissed too. I would want to shoot that damn dog as well. Why did the dog bite him in first place? Nobody is asking the more important question. WTF is with this guy's dog anyway. He never reported to the police but now he says something about having a gun pulled on him? Right, this guy is believable.
ryphi, are you saying you would have pointed a gun at the owner of the dog? Wow. I would have been pissed at the dog too, but would not have taken a risk of killing another person. The guy probably didn't report the incident because he didn't want his dog taken away (which might actually be worth it). What does he have to gain testifying now? Exactly, nothing. IN fact, now he risks losing his dog. Why do you people continue to excuse horrendous behavior? Put aside your blind hate for cops and begin to think for yourselves!
@BrianJ: you are right. Being a jerk off is not a reason to be shot. But pulling a gun on an officer (as the witness stated yesterday) is. How can you not understand that? I hope you don't work in a position where other people depend on you. I can see it now: "Hmmm....some guy with a gun is acting belligerent and erratic. I'm not gonna call the cops just yet. I'm gonna see if this gets worse first". Yikes.
redmage. It says animal control has taken this guys dog that likes to bite so I think you are wrong that he risks losing his dog by testifying.
It also says the gun was pulled when the neighbor "went to confront scott" AFTER his dog had bit him hard enough to justify an offer to pay for hospital bills.
An 80LB dog has bitten you and broken skin. The "ANGRY" owner (his testimony) is now coming at you to confront you???
Seems strange, seems extreme but we are only hearing one side of a situation and from an person that is irresponsible enough to allow his mutt to bite MORE THAN one person?
@Brian
I never said it was justification. Why not put words in my mouth?
All I'm saying is that his actions contributed to the outcome. He should have just left the store quietly instead of the BS "green beret" back talk.
Also grabbing his gun when not instructed to do so "contributed" to his death. Officer has no idea when you are reaching for your gun what you are going to do.
red:
You don't find it strange the order of the testimony? Why did we not hear from EVERY witness to the shooting at the same time? End of day, one witness to the shooting, right at the end of the day so the voters can see that on the news. So, wouldn't it make sense that we would have heard from them all at the same time?
At the point where he tells the store to F.O. and it is his right to carry, I would have called dispatch NOT 911. I would have told them I have a rude customer with a concealed weapon who refused to leave my property and I wanted him cited for tresspass. Let's see if that is how Costco handled this when we hear the call or if the EXAGGERATED the situation and now the exaggerators are not telling the parts of the story that justify that call.
TomD;
Your words not mine. I guess I did not write clearly enough.
My main POINT is: the three men who shot him DO NOT know ANY of this information so it CANNOT contribute to what they do when they confront him at the door. All that really matters is what happened at that door. If he pulled his gun, JUSTIFIED SHOT. End of story. I do not care if he was the POPE or the head of the KKK, because the three shooters DID NOT KNOW any of that when they pulled the trigger.
The video (obviously) would have been perfect, but we don't have it. So, why not just present all the people that saw the shoot and say what happened? Why the dog and pony show?
Again, for today. None of this evidence establishes whether or not the officers were justified in shooting Erik Scott. This is all "after the fact" evidence which the officers would not have known at the time of the shooting.
Because the jury is only being presented with this biased evidence without the Scott family's attorney being able to present rebutting testimony or evidence, or cross examination of the witnesses, the jury will always conclude in favor of the police, as they have been.
Furthermore, the ONLY witnesses that should be called in this proceeding are those relevant to the day of the shooting: the involved officers, costco employees, and eyewitnesses.
Extraneous witnesses - past girlfriends, ex-wives, former neighbors, co-workers or employers, and anyone who was NOT at Costco at the time of the shooting - have nothing of legitimate value to bring to the proceeding. Maybe Scott was a real jerk last year to some witness, but did Erik Scott pull and aim a gun at officers on THAT DAY prompting them to shoot him? That is the ONLY evidence that should be allowed in these proceedings!
No wonder the Courts are backlogged, jails are overcrowded, and Clark County has a budget crisis if the prosecution handles all of its criminal cases in the same way as it handles this inquest!
@Brian
Once again, I never said justified. Why are you lying?
I said his actions contributed to his death. If you don't understand the difference between justified and contributed...there isn't much to say.
I work as a Loss prevention Tech at a Store here in town, We have many cameras throughout our stores. It is my job to check the Cameras DAILY to make sure that they are in working order. Though I do not sit and view the cameras my entire shift and I spend most of my time walking the Floor, It is my duty to make sure that the systems are up and running properly. This Shai Guy stated during his questioning that it isnt his duty to check the Survalience system nor the duty of management, So my question is Who's job is it & Why even have the camera since your store doesnt rely on them..
TomD. They could not contribute to his death unless the officer KNEW and FELT that his swearing at a costco employee JUSTIFIED shooting him. I think the officer probably shot him because he saw a weapon come out of the back of his pants and the officers were ALL very nervous and inexperienced in the situation. I think the other TWO probably shot him because they reacted to the first bullet. It would SEEM from the only two relevant witnesses so far, that some officers said get on the ground and one said drop the weapon.
In obeying one of the commands, scott may have justified the other officer shooting him.
Tragic. Waste of life and still points to really poor training for someone who is paid to carry a weapon (and probably should only be allowed to write parking and traffic tickets).
The fact that the video is sent to a lab in California and can't produce corroborating evidence taints this whole process. I have understood that there's an FBI lab here in LV that does this work.
The eyewitnesses interviewed at the scene all said that Scott did not pull out his gun.
Did Metro send the video to the same lab that got the video of Gibbons and Mazzeo in a parking garage one rainy night?
This is all smoke and mirrors. Let's confuse the issue. Was it justified to shoot anyone in the back several times? This is not the first time this has happened with metro. Seems like a cowards way to me.
so after he fell to the ground they shot him 5 more times. I guess that makes the officers feel high to get their guns off but it shouldn't keep them out of jail.
Two witnesses said he pulled his gun after multiple verbal warnings from the police. Regardless of the drug and dog bite testimony, he pulled a gun on police. Clear case of suicide by cop.
Farkdawg;
I think the video would allow everyone to have their own opinion about whether the gun was being "pointed" or if it was being removed as ordered by the police but the end result would be the same.
Three patrol officers arrived into a situation that they are not equipped to handle and it got escalated to an ugly point.
If it was a trained SWAT squad, he would be awaiting trial for a few minor charges.
You can hear it on the tape, conflicting orders, confused (and agitated) victim, drugs blurring thoughts, compounded by the one cop grabbing at him. A lot of mistakes by the officers and A LOT of mistakes by Scott. Unless I hear that the gun was in the holster still when the body was moved or something to the contrary, I do not see how this cannot be a justified shoot.
Taylor;
When your weapon is ready to fire (and you are in a situation that you are on edge), it is VERY hard not to fire after you hear the first round. The other rounds probably came right after the first shot. I sincerely hope this leads to a lot more training at metro AND for them to establish policies on responding to calls like this.
So, the dog owner comes off as a meathead and my observations of him and his testimony lead me to believe that he got a gun pointed at him because he tried to be a tough guy towards Scott when the dog bit him.
I'd also be damned sure that I'd report someone pointing a gun at me to police immediately. Not days or weeks after the fact. Seems like a contrived story.
These Costco employees have zero credibility. The woman who testified yesterday completely contradicts what the guy testifying now has said. That woman says one cop shouted "at least five times" "get down." Mr. "loss prevention agent" says there were three cops and he heard "drop the gun."
He also tells the 911 call taker that the gun is a 9 mil. So the rent a cop is enough of a weapons expert to divine the type of round fired by a gun that is stuffed in someone's pants? Seems that this dude is a little too clairvoyant.
Both Paul Blart here and the old woman have to know that their jobs rely on their testimony in this matter. If you think that the Costco lawyer they both talked to didn't make that clear to them, you're living in la la land.
Also, how many of these officers had tasers? Does metro record in car radio traffic between dispatch and the responding units, or unit to unit traffic?
The reported information that "the man with the gun" was acting erratically or "looks high" as Paul Blart told the 911 call taker was certainly available to the police officers. If that information didn't get relayed from the dispatcher to the officers, that is certainly a problem. Officers are trained to deal with persons of impaired mental capacity. If they had the information, they shouldn't have gotten grabby. If they didn't have the information, something is wrong with the flow of information from the 911 caller to the responding units.
Like I stated earlier I believe The Costco Loss Prevention employee wasnt telling the whole truth, The 911 tape doesnt match his testimony given today and his survalience camera story isnt sitting well with me either. My heart goes out to the family of Erik Scott reguardless of what really went down that day , They are still suffering the loss of their family member Justified or NOT...
"Put your hands where I can see them now. Drop it! Get on the ground! Get on the ground!"
That alone should be sufficient for involuntary manslaughter.
Are you kidding me? That we give a gun to such poorly trained people?
Think about it. By law, we permit these guys to carry guns and authorize them to kill a person under certain circumstances.
Here, the officers obviously gave conflicting commands. There was no reason why they felt this man was a danger to them.
There was a call about a disturbance, nothing more.
I don't like guns, but I sure don't like authority figures justifying the killing of another person for their utter incompetence.
Let's see...here's what we have so far:
1. Scott was a very high achieving, educated, wealthy, good looking white man.
2. At least one of Scott's treating physicians testified that he was addicted to narcotics. Another testified that Scott was suffering from depression.
3. Scott pulled a gun on the owner of a dog that had bitten him.
4. Scott was acting erratic enough that Costco employees felt prompted to call 911 (something that rarely occurs at this particular Costco).
5. Two Costco employees testified that Scott looked dazed and that he pulled his gun out and pointed it toward the police.
6. One Costco employee indicated that Scott appeared "high"
7. Scott had five times the lethal range of narcotics in his system.
8. Scott was armed with two pistols (something that is illegal while using controlled substances)
So here's the way I see it: If you take away number one, no one is even paying attention to this story and most are congratulating the cops for protecting the public.
Race, class, and prejudice are having a massive affect on the way people view this incident.
How is "Put your hands where I can see them. Drop it! Get on the ground!" conflicting commands? You raise your hands and get on the ground. You really don't understand that? Wow. Pretty conclusive evidence.
redmage:
You make sense until you add to the fact that three independent actors (the cops) with three independent perspectives and three independent goals begin yelling those three separate commands.
When cop 1 yells "put your hands up"...
and
When cop 2 yells "drop it" ...
You are sending mixed messages and both of those officers are going to react differently. The one who said "hands up" is likely to shoot the guy for grabbing the gun that the other officer wanted the suspect to drop.
Standard procedure for approaching suspects is the "cover/contact" method. Meaning one officer makes contact with the suspect and issues commands while the other officer provides cover and security.
Three hotheads with guns drawn, yelling conflicting commands while physically grabbing on an armed suspect is most definitely not SOP.
This is why I want to know what was said between responding officers over the radio while en route to the incident. Did they coordinate their response, or did they rush into the situation.
Let's not forget two of the involved officers were on the job less than two years, and the third officer has already killed a man on the job.
In this case, it is absolutely critical to know what was going on in the heads of the officers involved, and what kind of interactions they had with each other during the incident.
When did one of the officers ask Scott to grab his gun? In my eyes "Drop it" means drop the gun you already grabbed. Why would "drop it" mean grab your gun? Why would an officer even ask a suspect to grab his gun? Exactly, they wouldn't. I just don't see how raising both hands while slowly getting on the ground would result in him getting shot. It wouldn't. Also, the 911 audio had the caller saying he's reaching for his gun. At that point, the shooting is justified.
Just a quick question: what does having less than 2 years on the job or the past of the other officer have to do with this event? Are you saying the judgement of officers on the job less than 2 years is worthless? Are they not properly trained? For the record I was one of the people arguing that the domestic abuse and other issues of Scott's past were irrelevant to the current issue. So should be the other officers past incident.
Do you feel like the police go into an event like this wanting to take another life? (serious question)
redmage:
The 911 audio is only one small part of the picture. So what if the caller said that he was grabbing the gun. If the cop told him to drop it before he reached for it, then he was complying with an order. The point is, since there is no first person recording with both video and audio from the perspective of the first cop to shoot, everything is conjecture.
The costco rent a cop specifically and emphatically said that Scott had some sort of trouble withdrawing the gun from his waistband. Paul Blart repeatedly made the motion of pulling up multiple times. If this is in fact the case, the officer had time to react. It wasn't a quickdraw situation.
Where was the taser? This is definitely a situation where tasers are meant to be used.
As for the experience (time on the job) question: It goes back to the question of why a cop would tell him to drop the gun.
An experienced cop likely would not tell a suspect to touch a weapon. However, these two rookies may have never experienced a situation in their very short careers that gave them the knowledge of how to deal with the situation properly. After all, they work out of Summerlin. Doubtful they've been to too many man with a gun calls in that area.
Who knows what the mindset of the officers was on that day. Questions of their mental state have been asked repeatedly. Hopefully we'll see some answers in this inquest. Were they using steroids? A valid question as I know for a rock solid fact that many, many cops do.
Did any of them have a military background, or recent combat experience? Who knows if PTSD plays into this. Who knows if one of the involved officers had a panic attack.
And yes, I do think that there are some police who feel that it is "god's work" to take a "mope, mutt, scumbag, dirtbag" etc. off the street for good.
Bryan Yant comes to mind.
I'm amazed how many people are trying to defend Scott.
He clearly got what was coming to him. He alone is responsible for his own death. Lets see...
He entered a private business, jacked out of his minds on drugs, armed with multiple weapons, acting erratic, destroying property, alarming employees to the point where they needed to call 911.
He goes on to disregard the cops when they tell him to drop his weapon and get on the ground.
If that is not asking to meet your maker, just what the hell is?
The cops did what they are paid to do. Scott was a danger to himself and others.
Furthermore, he died a criminal junkie.
He was clearly addicted to drugs.
He was breaking the law by entering a private business with multiple weapons, against that businesses wishes.
He hides behind the constitution, thinking that gives him some right to break the law. Perhaps if he was not a junkie, his judgment would be a bit better.
westvegas:
So the next time you, or your wife, son or daughter gets behind the wheel of a car drunk or high, the cops should just shoot them, right?
Mental incapacitation and being a danger to themselves and others seems to be your qualifying factors for a police issued bullet. Makes perfect sense.
Scott didn't do anything to threaten or harm anyone. The rent a cop specifically said so. The only reason he called 911 is because Scott was carrying against "store policy."
Police have a duty to protect the public. THAT, my friend, is what they are paid to do. That includes protecting "suspects," because police are not empowered to pass judgement against alleged criminals.
Even if we buy into the idea that Erik Scott was "jacked out of his mind," the police have a duty to protect him to the greatest extent possible.
They didn't.
lvmp1066:
Lets look at it from a gamblers perspective. What are the odds of any one of us doing as Scott had done that day and expecting any other result. Please reference my post above for a recap of how Scott got to the point where he hit the ground.
You could offer me my yearly salary for the rest of my life, and I would not take those odds. I know better, I'd be dead if I tried to pull off what Scott tried to pull off.
The difference is that I have unclouded judgment to know better. Scott did not as he was jacked out of his mind on some strong drugs.
Guess Metro never thought to taze the guy. And as for the CCTV footage to be "corrupted", I'm not sure what that means, but it will eventually emerge. Pictures never lie.
Concealed carry requires the firearm be CONCEALED. A gun may not show or stick out anywhere. The butt of a gun sticking out of a waistband is "brandishing a weapon." This is basic Concealed Carry 101 and learned in concealed carry class.
Open carry must be in a visible external holster, not stuck in a waistband.
Mr. Scott, with a gun in his waistband, was brandishing a weapon from the get-go, and violating both open and concealed carry laws. Apparently he was also opening Costco merchandise packages intended to be sold in bulk.
As to Costco security, in the past it was known to be lax and easy pickings for shoplifters. Seems it is no better today.
LVMP, I don't understand your logic. The reason he was killed by the cops is that he was armed and he didn't follow the orders of the cops and went for his weapon. That's all there is to it.
Him being zonked out of his mind may have contributed, but even if he was stone cold sober, pulling a gun on cops means you're probably going to die.
BTW, he sounds like an a-hole. He wasn't a green beret. Only A-h0les or crazy people lie about their military record. In fact, for some reason he left the Army after two years when his West Point obligation was for at least five years.
Oshikuru;
He left the military after two years because that was a time when the USA was dramatically reducing the size of our force. It was not a special case.
I think everything you wrote after "BTW" kind of kills any point you may have had above.
west:
What you would or would not do in that situation is irrelevant. Hell, I might soil myself and fall into a fetal position. All that matters is what Erik Scott did or did not do that day. His being "jacked out of his mind" is not a license for the police to kill him. If anything, an experienced officer would have recognized his mental capacity and tased him, bro.
Oshi:
How do you know he didn't follow the orders of the police?
Which officer was giving the orders?
Were there conflicting orders being given?
How many officers were giving orders simultaneously?
If Scott followed the orders of one officer who gave a command that conflicted with the orders of another officer, did he deserve to die?
And whether or not he is an a-hole has no bearing on whether a cop should shoot him or not. My brother in law is a huge a-hole. That doesn't mean he deserves to die for it. Maybe get tased. Not shot five times in the back by a cop.
I also know a number of military officers who graduated from commissioning programs with service obligations that they didn't meet. There are a multitude of reasons he could have gotten out of the military. Again, its irrelevant to his death.
I mean he was acting like a jerk off of epic proportions.
This picture of him being this upstanding, great guy, veteran, Duke graduate has been shattered. Can we agree he was acting like an @ss? So we can get past the "upstanding citizen" bullish*t
It's a tragedy. From a upstanding nice guy scenario, clearly this wasn't Erik Scott.
"I'm a fcuking green beret, go read the constitution"
What a jerk off of an individual. Here you have people trying to do their jobs within Costco and this supreme jerk has to be nasty and belligerent. Disgusting behavior towards employees from my point of view.
Wow, LVMP for somebody who has dismissed ALL evidence as conjecture, you seem to be doing a lot of the same yourself. First you are saying Scott was complying with the orders to drop his weapon. How so? He was never told to touch his weapon yet he tried. Then you say the officer had time to react because the had trouble getting his gun out of the holster. LMAO, pulling several tiems on a gun times takes 2 seconds at most. Had he succeeded on the fourth pull the gun would be out and shot within another 2 seconds (more likely less for a military trained person). Not much time to react. And saying this is the time for tasers is beyond ridiculous. I can tell you've never handled a gun or taser in your life with that statement.
Then you go on to dismiss the officers because of where they work. They went to academy and had lots of training. By the way, I live in Summerlin and we probably have just as many armed suspects as any other area. Wanna know why? Because the armed suspects come here to rob businesses and residents.
Do I think all cops are innocent people? No. There are bad apples in every profession. However, I have the intellectual capabilities to examine each situation as a unique one. Just because there have been bad cops and because some are on steroids (that you know some how but have done nothing to report making you just as bad as them), I do not condemn them all. I look at the evidence which is overwhelming in this case.
It's obvious by all your statements that you are incredibly biased or just a troll. Perhaps you knew Scott personally. If that is the case I am sorry. Or maybe you are just one of those anti police people. Who knows.
lvmp, you seem to be seriously ignoring the facts. Both his military training and his NV CCW training class already taught him that when confronted by police you DO NOT under any circumstances place your hand on your weapon. It doesn't matter if one of the officers shouted "drop it". If your hand is not on your weapon you do not move it there. If it is, you move your hand away and up in clear view.
You can "speculate" all you want that by "drop it" the officer was telling him to draw his weapon from his waistband and then drop it on the ground and would have shot him if he failed to comply. Since that is not what happened it is only speculation on your part, and not very good speculation either. Bottom line "suspect with hand on weapon = THREAT", "suspect with empty hands in air = NON-THREAT".
You keep repeatedly throwing out straw man arguments on "so because he did xxx he deserved to die?" They are all irrelevant. The answer to your question is "Yes. Because he drew his weapon after being confronted by police he deserved to die".
As for your previous question on tasers, here's a scenario or you. We put you in front of a man with a gun in his waitband and his hand on the gun (we'll even say not drawn, just hand-on-gun), you get a taser aimed at him and ready. At the same time you each get to try and fire on the other. Odds are that you will incapacitate him before he kills you. But odds are funny things. Repeat that same experiment 10 times with 10 different gunmen and I'll give you 1000 to 1 odds that you end up shot and killed before the 10th is done. So no, it is not reasonable to expect police to use tasers on an armed suspect unless his hands are far away from his weapon. (which was not the case this time)
red:
Everything in this case is conjecture. Everything. We have two conflicting witness statements, with a 911 call that conflicts with the testimony offered by one of those witnesses.
We have zero factual evidence pertaining to Erik Scott's demeanor, state of mind or intent. We have zero video evidence (conveniently) that could either corroborate or refute the official version of events.
All we have are people's perceptions of events. Each of the "eyewitnesses" thus far has something to lose or an axe to grind with Scott.
Recall that immediately following the event, scores of people began to come forward in forums similar to this one saying that what they saw didn't jibe with the official version of events.
Where are those people? Will the DA allow them to testify?
You condemn me for asking speculative questions. I condemn you for not asking them. Whether this is a clean cut white guy from Summerlin or a pot slinging black guy from NLV, we should NEVER accept the official version of events without facts to back it up.
Again, Bryan Yant got away with murder, because people trusted the official version of events.
As for my proficiency with firearms, I'll be at the shooting park tomorrow afternoon around 3 on the pistol range. You pick the course of fire and the loser buys the first round at the bar of your choice afterwards.
Deal?
Actually lvmp, there have been almost no witnesses who have come forth with conflicting statements.
Remember "I didn't see a gun" is very, very different from "I saw the whole thing and there was no gun". You and I weren't there and we can both factually state "I didn't see a gun". The only witnesses who matter are the ones who DID clearly see the entire event.
Sorry BrianJ, I don't buy the Army letting out highly qualified West Point officers two years through a five year commitment because of downsizing. Other officers passed over for promotion, yes. But not junior officers still having time on the books. He must have had problems, although that is irrelevant to this case.
Before it was recently declared unconstitutional, he squarely violated the Stolen Valor Act by stating he was a green beret when he wasn't. It might have been the drugs talking, but it is a dishonorable thing to say.
At the very least maybe this will bring out how to treat your fellow citizen in a decent, respectful manner. Mr. Scott needed a lesson on common courtesy. I still can't understand why he had to be so nasty. Was this his real personality?
I don't know how you can defend his actions that day.
"I'm sorry, I didn't know the gun was showing. I'll put it in my car and come back in to buy my merchandise"....or if putting the gun in the car is a problem
"I'm sorry, I didn't know the gun was showing. I'll leave now and my girlfriend can finish up buying the merchandise"
What the hell is so difficult about that?? Respectful, admitting the gun was exposed and then doing what need edto be done to rectify the issue..no need to be a douche bag
wendor:
The cops had enough opportunity to approach him, grab him and surround him. You really mean for us to believe that they didn't have opportunity to incapacitate him before he was able to reach behind him and tug four or five times on his weapon before drawing it?
After all, all parties seem to agree that the cops approached with weapons drawn, and it wasn't until after they engaged Scott that he made an attempt to access his weapon. Something that the police did triggered Scott's reaction here. It didn't happen in some vacuum that was Erik Scott's mind.
Do you really expect us to believe that the paid and "expertly trained" officers who surrounded him didn't have another course of action available to them?
@lvmp
What evidence are you looking for regarding eriks demeanor? The 2 men who talked to him have testified about his demeanor. Agitated, rude, ripping open merchandise.
I would say that is evidence of someones demeanor. What other evidence do you need?
"Guess Metro never thought to taze the guy."
Never bring a tazer to a gun fight. Also they probably did not have the chance to go that route. This all happened in a matter of seconds, not minutes.
Yes, lvmp that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. If you disagree so strongly, then run down and enroll in the police academy and from now on YOU can personally excercise "another course of action" whenever Metro in confronted with another armed suspect. Similar to your taser claim, I'd estimate that your attempts would get you killed within the first 10 attempts.
Everybody needs to stop feeding the troll. He's gonna dismiss every witness because they all have something to gain (what exactly???). He's gonna ignore the fact that Scott had "potential lethal" doses of meds in his system after he claims we have no factual evidence of his state of mind. He's gonna state the entire inquest is conjecture then say how the cops should have handled the situation as if he were actually there (hypocrite much?). Oh, lets not forget the very reliable sources who posted on forums like this. LOL. Everybody who claimed to have knowledge of the incident was interviewed. That was part of the reason the inquest has taken so long. Most people who claimed to have knowledge (on both sides) probably did not.
Oh, but red...it's so FUN to keep feeding him. He reminds me of a puppy I once saw who was so excited about the tidbits he was getting that he kept biting himself in his attempts to get to them faster.
OK, all kidding aside I know what you're saying and I'll give it a rest. (heck, even this post should probably get removed as off-topic and somewhat of a personal attack)
The comments about using a taser are so misguided they are laughable.
Metro was responding to a call about a subject who was ARMED, not giggly, high or drunk.
LVMP, obviously reading comprehension isn't your thing. Defend Mr. Scott all you want and hammer Metro all you want, but in the end the clear facts will win out over your red-herring, straw man conjecture.
I love that I'm a troll for asking questions regarding the death of another member of this community.
At the very least, Erik Scott and his family deserve answers to some of the questions that I and many people like me are asking.
Everyone in this community would deserve those answers if they were in Scott's position.
Why are so many of you so afraid to ask the questions?
Just because the drive is clicking doesn't mean the data is unrecoverable. Try http://www.drivesaversdatarecovery.com/. Of course, the DVR was bad prior to the shooting and it wasn't recording at all at the time, then there is nothing to recover.
lvmp, to answer your questions directly; asked and answered.
I am sorry Mr. Scott's life was forfeited, but he set those events in motion not the witnesses, Costco or Metro.
Actually lvmp, you're not being called a troll for asking the questions. You're being called a troll because you choose to ignore or disregard the answers when they don't fit in with what you've already decided on.
You asked for witnesses to the shooting, and you're getting them. But you immediately disregard everything they say because you think they all have an ulterior motive.
For those who all ask why Erik's medical history, drug use, etc are relevant...this is why. Eyewitnesses are often unreliable, so you need background information to help determine the value of their testimony. If they say they saw someone doing something that, based on their history, seems highly unlikely - then a juror might give less credence to the testimony than they would if there was a history that made the actions testified about seem more likely to have occurred.
Heresay, Heresay, Heresay, a man is dead, PERIORD! Murdered by our thug cops, PERIOD! He can't defend him self, they murdered him, PERIOD! This is a case of he said, she said. What is the purpose of trying to defile his character? The video, as we all guessed wouldn't be available. What about the store cameras?? This rent a cop is a joke! By the rent a cop own admission, it is easy to steal from Costco, because their cameras don't work! Heads up to all shoplifters.
How convenient -- the video is lost. Big time corruption and lying on the part of Costco and Metro. Wow! Must be nice to cover up a murder...
These guys are too much!
Yeah havens, and a pretty good cover up too....."Hey guys, let's go down to Costco and sabotage their DVR just in case, two days from now, we get called to respond to an armed suspect so we can shoot him and get off completely free!"
Or are you thinking that Metro has a time machine hidden in the office that they can use to go back in time and alter the evidence?
Missing video, especially from a hard drive system, just reeks of foul play.
The inquest system must be replace by a review panel involving civilians.
My own thought is that any officer involved in a shooting is automatically charged with some kind of manslaughter or attempted manslaughter. Let a judge and jury sort it out in a real court setting, not this dog and pony show. Granted, that would still leave the question of how hard the DA would prosecute such a case.
Well Wendor -- when you're guys are going to be accused of unlawful use of deadly force, you just waltz in as the storm trooping police, talk to the mall cop security guard, seize the video equipment and then you decide what to do with it afterword, right?
You've got lots of time to figure out what went wrong....maybe, it had water damage? Maybe, it stop recording? maybe it is corrupted? maybe....well, you get the idea. Metro had enough time to figure out the answer with nobody watching over the shoulder any time or part of the time it was in their custody -- must be nice....
And the phone call to the company that provides the surveillance equipment two days prior?
Or are you claiming that Metro intimidated Costco, the surveillance company (Vegas Valley Locking Systems), AND the phone company too?
I am in the Hard Drive business for 20 + Years.
If Seagate recovered 600GB of Data. Its just a matter of indexing the data to the software used to create the video. THIS IS NOT A JOB FOR METRO. Its a job for the Secret Service or an outside vendor working with Seagate Recovery. This is starting to smell to high heaven. The data could have been unmounted from the system improperly by Metro. Normally a video recorder writes across a group of drives called a RAID. One drive failing would not be an issue. Unmounting the RAID by an untrained person could have caused this issue.
Actually bltserv, if you followed the testimony I don't believe that it was Metro that removed the hard drive. I believe that it was Jody Okawaki, "a special agent with the U.S. Secret Service who is a computer forensic examiner" who removed the drive and took it to Seagate Recovery Service. And if you think that most commodity DVR's use RAID then you're living in a dream world.
Wendor -- the obvious problem with your defensive reasoning is that the 'lost' video would have been covering the MAIN Entrance' to the Costco structure -- the point at which most if not all shoplifting cases are noted and prosecuted with the video.
This would have been MUCH too important for Costco to have allowed to have gone unfixed for several days. And frankly, I have no idea what the relationship between Metro and Costco Security would have been after the shooting. [ Right now, it looks pretty iffy...]
As far as the Technical aspects are concerned, I'll let the comment by 'bltserv' represent the electronic/mechanical side of the argument..
Wendor -- So you have more than 20 years in the computer hardware business?
Hummm.
Most commercial systems use cheap SATA drives in a RAID configuration. Tell us the system configuration. Tell us how many camera`s used. Tell how how much of the 600GB has been recovered.
Not just some cheap little images of the parking lot. I use RAID on my system at work. Its a very cheap system with only 3 camera`s. The problem is reindexing the data to the software if its been dismounted wrong. We need someone from the company that installed the system or its OEM.
Frankly, this just looks really, really bad.
As Shakespeare said: 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.'
The Costco employee aggrevated or escalated the situation instead of containing it. His method was confrontational. He turned an incident into a volatile situation that escatlated into an emergency, specially, when he knew that the customer had a temper,a gun and was acting erratic-a deadly combination for some one to be cornered. According to his testimoney "the customer wasn't doing anything illegal." He wasn't wielding his gun at him or other customers. The employee should have handled this discretely and diligently. He should have been aware of the mindset of the Police in view of the recent work place shootings and he should have been aware that the call could be easily interpreted as "a customer with a gun going on a rampage" as opposed to "a customer acting erratically" which could have elicited a different mind set and response from the Law enforcement.
Yes Wendor. 20+. Used to work with large Mainframes. Own a business that does Fibre Channel RAID systems for the Motion Picture business.
Try my user name as a URL. No Lie.
Actually Havens, it's funny you ask because the answer is "Yes, I do." I have 32 years of experience in the industry.
As for your claims that it would be too important to wait for a replacement....you obviously don't work int he industry. What exactly do you think Costco's options would have been? They reported it to the vendor/supplier (Vegas Valley Locking Systems) at which point they have no option but to wait for that vendor to respond.
Try this as an experiment. Let's say that you have a GE refrigerator that's still under warranty. Call them up and tell them that your refrigerator just died and you want a replacement. When they tell you how long it will be before you get one, you go ahead and tell them that "it's important and you can't wait that long". Keep repeating that and see if you get your new refrigerator any sooner.
The local Costco store doesn't have any more power than you do in a case like that to make things happen sooner.
Normally these systems take all the camera`s on the entire site and stream data across the RAID not a single drive per camera. You might lose a camera and its feed. But not the RAID and its data on the server.
Chunky says:
So much for real names elevating the discussions and comments!
That's what Chunky thinks!
hahahahahhahaahhaahahhaahahhahhahhahahahaha
Whoever that company is that supplied and maintained the camera system is soon to be OUT OF BUSINESS. That's what happens when you buy crap from the lowest bidder, good job Costco!
Funny's %#@# I've heard today.
Well Wendor, then you better argue this out with bltserv because from a quick overview and search from Google, he appears to be correct. Since I am not an expert in computer information storage devices, I cannot give you an in dept opinion: unfortunately for you, bltserv has already done that .... and his arguments are quite compelling, especially when checked against the internet.
BTW - major stores have back-ups and redundant systems or nonetheless get quick repairs of their primary video equipment. And it would be terribly interesting to see if there were any shoplifting arrests at the Costco over the previous past two days and the video was supplied.
But ya know, I imagine that even if a few took place, I imagine they were dismissed and the video isn't there...some reporter from the Sun ought to give it a 'look see'....
Go look on Vegas Valley Locking Systems site. They use an external ISCSI RAID array on the commercial system they advertise. More than likely filled with Seagate SAS drives to store several Terabytes of data on a streaming basis. So at any one time you have a month of data on the array. These system are very redundant. Somethings not playing out right here with the information being given the public about the Camera Security System.
Actually bltserv, I didn't ever dispute your industry experience claim - that was Havens challenging my industry experience.
I just think that your experience with high end systems has mislead you into believing that local stores like Costco use far higher end equipment than they actually do. Almost all common retail security system DVR's do NOT have any for of RAID compatibility. Go ahead and look up the specs for DMStar, Apex, Falco, Bluefin, etc. Not a single model with RAID for redundancy.
As a matter of fact, if you go back and listen to today's testimony over again I think you will find that they covered that the unit in question used a SINGLE hard drive and therefore could not have any RAID capability.
Actually bltserv, if you looked at Vegas Valley's site you would see that they use Unisight systems. The standalone system that Costco got (UNS-7000 series) does *NOT* have any RAID redundancy.
Another of those convenient camera failures, or turn offs that seem to always happen when Metro is involved.
However, if some kid robbed the worst, most run down 7-11 in town, you would bet we would have an amazingly good high definition image that was reliably taken so that it could be shown on the local news.
What gives?
From the Vegas Valley website:
The Benefits to a CCTV system include:
*
Reducing potentially insurance premiums upon installation.
*
Increasing staff productivity.
*
Identifying criminals.Monitoring areas you can't.Deters theft, malicious mischief and vandalism.
*
Constant and consistent surveillance 24 hours a day, every day.
VVLS offers both analog and IP cameras, please contact us for details.
* Video Format NTSC/PAL
* Resolution CIF, QCIF, QQCIF, 2CIF, 4CIF (D1)
* D1:720X480 Half-D1:720X240 CIF:360X240
* Video Compression H.264
* Video Inputs (16) BNC Camera Inputs, 1Vp-p/75ohm up to (64) cameras per DVR
* Video Outputs 1 VGA, DVI, S-Video
* Display Options 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 32, 64
* Audio 64 Ports
* Internal Storage 2 SATA Drives up to 4 TB
* External Storage iSCSI
* Recorder Rate Real-time Recording (Max up to 64 channel, PAL: 25f/s/ch, NTSC: 30f/s/ch)
* Archive External Drives Via USB 2.0, Fire wire or Built in DVD+RW
* Client Connections Viewable through Client Application (Windows 32 bit 2000-Vista) or web interface
Return to top
http://66.28.54.85:2700/UNS-7000%20Serie...
Very good Havens....and where on there does it say RAID?
It list up to 2 internal drives and support for external iSCSI.
But the testimony today has already covered that it was "internal storage" that failed, so they were not using external iSCSI.
We know it has to be a UNS-7000 series because the specs listed above only match the UNS-7000 series (they're way off from the UNS-9000 series and those are the only two commercial DVR systems that Unisight sells currently - though technically the UNS-9000 isn't a DVR, it's an NVR)
The UNS-7000 series boxes do not support RAID on the internal drives, so the RAID question is pretty much put to bed.
UNS-7000 series. Looks like NO RAID. But if they have pictures of the Squad Cars rolling up. Then by default the system is working. The drive is working. Dual SATA Drives in the bigger systems.
The data from all the cameras is streamed at the same time to the drive. Its not independent as per a drive per camera. That one drive/dvr would handle all the camera`s
bltserv, you are correct...IF they are using a single DVR to handle all of the cameras. Not if they have multiple DVR units. I don't know the answer to that question.
I'm going with bltserv on this one. I'm also in an industry that relies heavily upon drive storage. All of our systems are RAID, often with replication. The loss of a single drive wouldn't even cause a blip, the system automatically compensates and allows us to replace it with a "hot swap" in a matter of minutes.
Even in the unlikely event that the Costco system was using a single drive with no backup procedure, data recovery would get almost all of it.
In the even more unlikely event that it was a hardware failure on a single drive system then the system would have been fully crashed at the time of the initial failure.
No, this stinks.
neither do I Wendor...I'm just following the conversation and showing the references as we go along.
By the way, where does it say that the Costco in question was using the simplified version of the UNS-7000 and not the version of security equipment as noted on the Vegas Valley website?
I do a fair amount of business with Data Recovery.
Unless its a seperate DVR for the door camera and it was down 2 days ago. Then I say BIG BS. They are trying to make this confusing for the general public who have ZERO experience with this type of data being produced, stored and recovered. The camera/drive is the smoking gun here. And unless they shredded the platters. Its been recorded and saved.
Havens, because if they were using iSCSI the experts would not have testified about the "internal storage" failing - iSCSI is external storage.
blt, I'm really torn on the single DVR/multiple DVR question. The UNS-7000 series can go up to 16 video feeds. Would Costco need more than 16 cameras? (Dunno) Would Costco have bought multiple smaller systems from VVLS, possibly even at different times, as they expanded surveillance? (Dunno) So bottom line, I'm torn on you observation about some cameras recording and others not...with a single DVR it sound be a red flag, with multiple it wouldn't and I don't have enough information to make a guess as to which way they would go or why.
Has anybody offered to turn this surveillance equipment over to the DOJ in Washington DC to see what their team of forensic investigators can do with this equipment?
Havens, you mean like the Secret Service agent who already testified that she was brought in to help recover the data?
So -- nobody has actually seen the storage device and nobody knows what the system's identifiers are or what its capabilities were -- is that correct Wendor?
Everybody here is just making educated guesses?
Havens, you mean like the Secret Service agent who already testified that she was brought in to help recover the data?
***************
Treasury agents work for the United States Department of the Treasury. As you might surmise Wendor, they don't work for the FBI or the Department of Justice and do not send things routinely to the FBI crime lab in Washington DC.
Now, if we were worried about counterfeit currency, we have the right people on the job here!
Havens,
Correct, neither bltserv or I have seen the unit. But based on the name of the vendor (VVLS), what they sell (Unisight), and the specs given by both VVLS and Unisight - we can make educated guesses about what hardware model Costco is using.
The fact that he and I are coming to the same conclusion about which model it is, despite the fact that we're on opposite sides of the original question, escalates it to a VERY educated guess.
We need to see some past recordings or archived files. On the replay it will show all the cameras and the configuration of the system at that time. This is not rocket science. It just needs an unbiased outside forensic specialist who is NOT afilliated with any type of Law Enforcement agency. Someone with hands on knowledge of the system Costco uses every day. Someone who wont lose their job or life if they spill the beans on Metro. 99.9% there is Video of what happened that afternoon. Unless its already been destroyed. I hope they can document the posession of that drive since it was removed. Even if the files were deleted by someone. They are still recoverable by an expert.
I'd take the Treasury department over the FBI for data recovery any day of the week. The perception that the FBI are the top experts in that field is mainly an artifact of TV and movies. The Treasury department has to do far more forensic data recovery in their cases than the FBI does.
Why hasn't the unit been identified and photos released so that all parties know EXACTLY what we are talking about here? While I have absolutely no doubt you two know very well what you are talking about, I'd just rather see the thing ( or a picture of it ) so I can tell exactly what's going on...
Just being careful I guess...
Wendor, with all due respect, the FBI recovers computer data all the time for criminal prosecutions around the world and on behalf of most other federal agencies-- their crime lab is one of the best in the world to do so.
Here - you and I just part company...
"Why hasn't the unit been identified and photos released so that all parties know EXACTLY what we are talking about here?"
That's a good point Havens.
I suspect that it's because blt and I are looking at it from the point of view of "investigators" or "expert witnesses"...but the case is being presented to a jury. A jury isn't supposed to be made up of experts who can interpret the evidence independently, it's a group of people whose job is to weigh the testimony of the experts who did evaluate the evidence.
Well, when we talk about a 'Ford', we call it a 'Ford', not just a 'car'. Seems the process is a bit sloppy here and needs a lot of work.
Anyway, guys, good luck. Maybe you'll get some more information later.
Good night.
..one more thing:
Various FBI technical programs address the growing complexity of computer investigations. FBI legal attache stationed in 45 countries use sophisticated methods to investigate and coordinate cyber incidents around the world. In the United States, the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) is a partnership between the FBI and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C). IC3 processes complaints of cyber crime and then coordinates computer crime investigations.
The FBI's Cyber Division at FBI Headquarters in Washington DC coordinates investigations in which networks or computers are exploited as instruments in criminal activity or as targets. High priority is given to investigations that involve terrorist organizations or intelligence operations sponsored by foreign governments. The FBI trains and certifies computer forensic examiners who work in FBI field offices to recover and preserve digital evidence. The FBI maintains a computer forensic laboratory in Washington, DC for advanced data recovery and for research and development. Most FBI field offices also have specialized cyber squads called Cyber Action Teams (CATS) which provide expert assistance to law enforcement and aid cybercrime investigations.
You guys questioning the drive recovery, Seagate the drive manufacturer could not recover it. It was mentioned earlier in the story. Seagate would be about as good of an authority as you can get on the matter.
The picture captures his attitude perfectly. The guy shows no remorse for having killed someone. None.
Beware GESTAPO 911.
It's not clear how much time Scott was permitted to comply. It hardly seems to have been adequate.
How long does it take the average person to comply when they are startled by a cop yelling unexpected commands.
It's a sad day in the Valley.
Beware GESTAPO 911.
The Costco people have a pony in the race since it was an employee's GESTAPO 911 call that brought the killers to the store.
westvegas,
If Seagate can't do a recovery, that raises even more red flags for those of us who work with drive systems.
From what they described, I think the reason the files can't be recovered is that there were no files to recover.
From the description "the DVR unit was locking up" and the fact that it didn't start recording again until after the reboot...makes me suspect that from 2:14pm on the 8th until it was rebooted on the 10th it was not recording at all.
I don't care how good you are at recovery, you can't recover files that were never created.
And Havens, if my comments made you think that I was saying that the FBI wasn't good at forensic data recovery, that was not my intent. What I was trying to say is that they are not THE best even if they are one of the best. The Treasury Department's forensic data recovery team is however, in my opinion, the best professional civilian team in the country. (There's a research team at RPI that's doing remarkable things - just not on a professional basis)
If between them and the drive manufacturer they can't recover the data...then it isn't there to be recovered.
Shot in the back 5 times? Wow.
Wendor I agree you cannot recover what is not there. The mere fact that a work order was placed days before makes me suspect that it was not recording. Of course most places do tend to have 1 DVR per camera or limited sets of cameras (such as 4 camera per DVR). Also sometimes items are just not recoverable. For instance it may have written a corrupted file instead of a recording, in which case the only thing that would be recovered is a bunch of 1's and 0's that add up to nothing.
And it could also be that the allocated spots on the drive to record were not set properly. After all the data is only stored for a short time and then written over.
Besides that, if any alterations were made that would be easily documented on the drive through its hash marks. Also if you were going to do the a cover-up why on earth would you only wipe the portion of a drive where the bad stuff happened? Wouldn't that raise suspicions? Instead would it not make more sense to wipe the entire drive? Don't need to be an investigator to figure out Metro tried to recover data and obviously it wasn't there or the information was corrupted.
he said they took the hard drive Seagate Recovery Service to help recover the data.
David Teigen, of Seagate, said in earlier testimony they were able to get about 600 gigabytes of data from the hard drive.
Uh which way did he go jorge? Scratching head uhhh he uhh has a gun concealed in his pants.
Is it me or does Officer Moser remind anyone else of Curly Howard from the 3 Stooges??
No wonder Metro is like the keystone cops....they are the Keystone cops.
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Officer Moser say in his testimony that Eric Scott said to him "I have a gun." That doesn't sound a guy who wants to get into a police shootout. If he did say that then shame on the Sun for not reporting it in Moser's testimony summary. I think that's a nice bit of info that shows Scott was not going to act in a threatening way.
Why didn't his family and friends, who seem to be a very caring, involved people try and get some help for him?
I don't think it would have taken a professional to take one look at Erik and deem something was wrong.
Who is his girlfriend? He curses out a small time Costco employee and she doesn't say anything to him? What kind of people are we talking about who think that is appropriate, decent behavior?
Let's get past the whole conspiracy crap. Hundreds of potential witnesses and somehow a Costco employee is going to risk their freedom by partaking or creating a knowing lie..so he can salvage his $8/hour job?... Please
Was the Titanic taken down by a bomb?
Did the USA purposely fly planes into the WTC?
there were 3 shooters at JFK's assassination?
You conspiracy nuts are grasping at straws. He was drugged out of his mind. He pulled a gun when never instructed to do so. Started to aim it at officer(s)...got shot. Evidence is crystal clear.
From the looks of Mosher, I am surprised he had time to put down the donuts and draw his weapon.
Anyone notice the statement Erik's father released that said his son had a "civil" conversation with the store employee when told he couldn't have a gun in the store.
"I'm a fcuking green beret, go read the constitution".....is civil? On Mars maybe?
As I was sitting in the Inquest today, listening to the testimony, I found somethings that I have some questions about.
1. Novotny. He testified that after his lab/pitbull/chow/rott mix dog which weighed about 70 bs, bit Scott, and he found Scott with a weapon pointed at his dog, he went upstairs to his condo and got his 9mm and went back out to look for Scott. He didn't put that in his report to Metro. After he found out that Scott had been killed he contacted Metro to remind them about the previous incident with the dog.
2. Costco Video. Lierly testifed that he discovered the video was not working around 215PM on Thursday July 8. Lierly called Swords from Vegas Valley Locking Systems to inform him of the problem and they tried to fix the system. Both testifed that as part of that effort, they tried to reboot the system and it didn't work. Later Mr Wyche, a civilian computer forensics expert employed by Metro testifed that he was called to Costco around 445PM, Sat July 10. He arrived around 515 and went to the video room. He tried to recover images, but was not successful. He then rebooted the system and it WORKED. Det. Calos who was one of the homicide investigators showed the last recorded video from July 8, and the first video available from July 10 displaying the crime scene. You could clearly see the area where Scott was shot. The video showed the shell casings, a cell phone, and a HOLSTERED 45. Why did the video not working after rebooting on July 8 and did work after rebooting on July 10? Why was the video left running if it was not working during that period?
3. Shooting. Lierly testifed that he pointed out Scott to Mosher. He testified that he saw Mosher touch Scott's right elbow, and that Scott reacted to the touch. He said the he never saw Kollberg in the area of the shooting. After Scott was facing Mosher, Lierly testified that Scott raised his left hand in a surrender position, and was tugging on a 9mm pistol on his right hip. As it came free and he started to raise it, Mosher fired. The first shot hit Scott in the chest and he grabbed his chest and dropped the gun. Mosher testifed that Scott never raised his hands. Mosher said that Scott drew a weapon and Mosher fired as it was being raised. He later testifed that he knew that type of HOLSTER. The 911 record shows Mosher telling Scott, in rapid succession to "Put his hands up. Drop it. Get on the ground, get on the ground." Mosher also testifed that his commands WERE NOT in reaction to what Scott was doing, and that no other officers were issuing commands. Mosher admitted that it was his voice issuing those commands. Both Mosher and Lierly testifed that they were within 6-8 feet of each other.
4. Inside Costco. Lierly testifed that Scott was informed by a manager that the store policy was not to allow weapons inside the store. According to Lierly, Scott quicly stood up, told the manager the was green beret and had a constitutional right to carry the gun. The manager never told Scott to leave the store. In fact, Lierly followed Scott as the went to the front of the store to get a shopping cart and return to the sporting good aisle. According to Lierly, he opened 3 or 4 packages of water bottles and tool the tags off several lunch bags. That was the extent of the "damaging merchandise." Aside from the comments to the manager, Lierly didn't feel that he posed a threat or danger to anybody in the store. He also testifed that Scott never drew a weapon in the store.
"Sometime you just have to contract out to a competent 3rd party if you can't do it in-house.
We turned our entire DVR drive array over to the feds when they were investigating a robbery at one of our bank branches. One of drives had died and they couldn't get data off of it so they sent it to Encase. Encase was able to get the data off of it that the forensic recovery team at the FBI and Secret Service and Western Digital couldn't do."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnCase
This shows. You get the right people, software, and drive knowlegde. You will get your data back.
All it takes is money and knowledge. Almost always all the data is there. Its got to be reindexed by an expert to make the videos viewable again. Like dropping a puzzle on the floor. The pieces are there.
Here' one to ponder folks. Story about 2 Dallas police officers fired for beating a suspect after a car chase. http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S1746...
Here is my take on some of the RELEVANT testimony thus far and I know that there are many more facts that have yet to be discovered:
Conflicting statements from the Costco Loss Prevention Supervisor. Conflicting testimony between the Costco Loss Prevenion Supervisor and the "Demo" lady. Supervisor said he heard an officer yell "put the gun down" while she heard an officer say "get on the ground."
That alone brings into question what any individual would have or could have heard, particularly Erik Scott.
We know from the 911 call that recorded the shooting that the time lapse between the confrontation and the actual shooting was between 7 and 8 seconds, per the Judge's interpretation.
You have testimony that officer Mosher came up behind Erik Scott, not identifying himself as a Metro police officer, and puting his hand on his gun from behind. This could trigger any concealed carrier to swing around and push someone away. In other words, you have no idea who is grabbing at your gun.
This is problem number one. You force the subject to have to turn around and fugure out who you are.
continued...........
.....continued
Next you have Erik stating to the officer that he had a gun, while putting his left hand up in the air. This typically means: Look, my left hand is clean. I have nothing in it. I am showing you I have nothing in it. This typically means that the subject is not wanting to get shot.
But what about him pulling out his gun? Here is the problem:
The "multiple commands" issue.
In a situation such as this, you cannot alow the subject any room for error if you are about use deadly force.
Here is what I would have wanted to hear in this scenario since the officer's intent at this point was to detain Erik:
"Metro Police! You in the gray shirt with the gun in your belt! Do not move! Do not move! DO. NOT. MOVE. Do not make any motion toward your firearm or I will shoot you!"
The lead officer alone should be making this statement. Keep it simple. Keep it direct. Keep it Clear. Eliminate any interpretation on the part of the subject. You cannot yell multiple commands at a subject you are attempting to detain or disarm and then shoot him or her for not following your commands. If multiple commands are shouted and you have not identified yourself as a police officer you in essence have forced the subject to first interpret who you are and then decide which commands to follow. He has no room for error, putting him or her in harm's way. This is a violation of one's civil rights. You have drawn him or her in to a deadly situation when it is your job to attempt every measure to bring the situation to a non-lethal resolution.
Listen, I am not interested in crucifying the officers here. This whole situation was a mess from the get go. Particularly from the way that the Costco employees had handled the situation. We now know that the Costco employee did not ask Erik Scott to leave the store. The original 911 call was not an accurate account of what the Costco employee testified to today. And beyond that what I think had occurred here is an egregious breakdown in procedure and a lack of training by police for situations such as this one.
The greater public safety interest at hand and one that absolutely needs to be resolved is the constitutionality of the right of officers to use deadly force in instances where no clear instructions have been rendered to the subject being detained (or attempting to be detained). There needs to be clear and specific statutes that address the rights of citizens (who concealed carry) and the procedural requirements of law enforcement officers in cases where a subject (who an officer has not personally witnessed commit an act) is being detained subsequent to a 911 call or report by any non law enforcement entity.
continued........
....continued from last post:
Why? Becuase you can never know that the person who made the initial call or report is being acurate, or has some other motivation in mind. They could be mentally ill, distort the truth or in some state of mind that could put the subject (concealed carrier) at risk. In fact, it would be in the interest of public safety if all respondents (i.e., officers) assume nothing, other that they in fact can not know what is going on until they arrive at the scene and determine it for themselves. In my opinion,
the responding officer(s) should probably approach the situation in a manner similar to a felony stop, until more information is gathered. This will ensure the protection of everyone.
In my humble opinion, this case probably needs to go straight to the Federal level whereby a verdict rendered can be used in an effort to formulate specific laws and procedures that address the constitutional rights of citizens who carry, as well as and the responsibilities of law enforcement officers when it comes to these potentially deadly scenarios. Who wins? Everyone. Police officers will have clear cut guidelines for what their responsibilities are and citizens who carry can have faith in knowing that such guideliness are in place to protect them from being a victim of some unfortunate misunderstanding.
I am still skeptical of the explanations given about the video DVRs not working. One "corrupted" the second one sent for "forensic analysis" and the third not applicable. There is something not right with this.
Im sorry for the Scott family loss but to me it sounds like Mr. Scott was a ticking timebomb that was ready to go off.
Let's see the film let's see the film the 'cop hates parrot' but if you have read the hundreds of biggoted posts by these opinionated folks you will come to the same conclusion that I have!
No matter what a vidio of that days occurence would reveal these opinions wouldn't change and their rabid cries would become even more ludicrous!
The film is rigged the film has been tampered with the film has been edited!
SIIIIIGH!
The neighbor's testimony is just more character assassination. It's irrelevant, and there's no opportunity to rebut it, either.
Imagine you're bitten by a large dog. You have access to a weapon, and you produce that weapon, training it on the animal that has attacked you. Suddenly, a fairly large, angry man appears and begins screaming and cursing at you regarding the fact that you're about to shoot his dog. Would you be acting reasonably if you then pointed your weapon at the raving lunatic who was threatening you? Yes. It's reasonable to point your weapon at such a person.
But we don't know if that's what happened. We don't know enough information about the confrontation between Scott and the neighbor. Despite this fact, many people are assuming that Scott was mad at his innocent, peaceful neighbor and threatened him with a gun, all over a simple dog bite. Is there any possibility that the neighbor was behaving in a threatening toward Scott in an attempt to protect his dog?
It's looking more and more to me as though there's enough doubt and confusion for this inquest to fail to properly fault the police. I have no doubt in my mind that Scott and his girlfriend would have walked to their vehicle and never harmed anyone had they been allowed to do so. Instead, an overzealous child who works for Costco helped the metro police create a situation where someone died needlessly. Costco will get no more of my money because of this fact. I'm writing a letter this weekend in the hopes of convincing them that their policy obviously doesn't prevent the wearing of arms in their stores, and that it is this policy that brought this entire tragedy about. I carry in Wal-Mart and Sam's on a regular basis. Lots of people do in my area. There's never a problem, even when someone inadvertently prints or reveals their weapon. This happens several times a year, too. I guess our police simply aren't anxious to start blasting because they know they live in a right-to-carry state, and lots of people do, in fact, carry.
Just happens to be a shooting,when the security drive was down
I think you could call that a major coincidence
I think not!!
end of story
peace out
It's the police use of force training that is the cause of this murder of Eric Scott. The police have been primed to kill, and then evaluate a situation, our police have said so. The argument that the police do not intend to kill someone when they get out of bed in the morning has absolutely no meaning, when one understands the training these police officers get. Police Officer William Mosher apparently, unable to think while under stress, gave commands to drop the gun, and then murdered Eric Scott when Scott was compiling with those commands. After the fact, Police Officer William Mosher that he didn't even remember that he gave those commands. Yes folks, we do have a murder. But the people responsible for these murders are those people who drafted and approved the current police use of force policies, the people who provided the training, and those in political and judicial powers who allowed these polices to stand. It is time for the Citizens to call for a change in these "Police use of force", tactics.
"Swords said after he couldn't recover the data, he returned the DVR over to Lierley."
Here is my question:
Two days after the shooting, the drive is given to Vegas Valley Locking Systems to try to recover the lost footage. When it can't be recovered, the employee returns it to Lierly, the Costco employee. What happened to the chain of custody for such crucial evidence? Shouldn't it have gone directly back to law enforcement?
I don't know what happened but the whole thing with the video is ridiculous.
This is not over yet. Meaning You watch towards the end they will bring the truth to light. What metro did to Eric Scott was wrong. These so called police could have shot him in the foot but no they choose to take his life.
I'm glad all you morons think that a community college education and a few months in "cop school" gives a person total power and control over the entire population base. I wish I were an uneducated neanderthal like you. Because if I were, I wouldn't be so depressed at how ****ing pathetic this world and country is.
Take a look at that fat worthless nobody cop in the photo. That guy doesn't know SH*T about the world. He's a pawn. He spends his days chasing around people who have NO bearing on the success of this world. And that's exactly what the elite want. They want stupid cops and stupid politicians. They want out citizens oppressed so they can be jerked around like slaves. Yeah people, give up your guns, your freedoms. Here, have another episode of American Idol and another Coke while we strip your rights away.
Did I hear a comment about the FBI? LOL. The FBI is such a pathetic organization. The salaries are so low that they get the left-over college idiots who couldn't get a job elsewhere. DEA? Thugs in uniforms. Yeah man, go bust those darn pot dealers! Because gosh, selling weed is bad! I mean hey, don't worry about the people stealing millions and billions of dollars from our tax funds. Don't worry about the corporations playing market games. Don't worry about the banks wreaking havoc all over the country. No.. no... go worry about the guy selling pot on the corner.
The cops are the real enemies. Knowingly or unknowlingly, it doesn't matter. They're all a bunch of idiots who shouldn't be in charge of cooking toast.