Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
A photo of a handgun that was said to belong to Erik Scott is displayed during a coroner’s inquest for Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010.
By Kyle B. Hansen (contact) 
, Cara McCoy
Published Friday, Sept. 24, 2010 | 8:42 a.m.
Updated Friday, Sept. 24, 2010 | 6:21 p.m.
Audio Clip
- Unidentified caller from within Costco talking to dispatchers
- You need to upgrade your Flash Player
Audio Clip
- Shai Lierley on the phone with 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
Related Stories
- Officer in Costco shooting says man raised gun, didn't know it was in holster (9-23-2010)
- Day 2 blog: Officer in Costco shooting: ‘He was a deadly threat with that weapon’ (9-23-2010)
- Inquest testimony focuses on Erik Scott’s use of prescription drugs (9-22-10)
- Day 1 blog: Witness says Erik Scott appeared 'dazed,' aimed gun at officer (9-22-10)
Costco shopper Barbara Fee demonstrates how she saw Erik Scott raise his right arm toward a Metro Police officer as she testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010.
5:24 p.m.
The inquest has adjourned for the day. Proceedings will begin again at 8 a.m. Saturday.
The last witness to testify today was Barbara Fee, who was waiting in line with her granddaughter when they were told to evacuate the store.
Her granddaughter pointed out that there was an officer with a gun by the door.
Fee said she heard the officer yelling at Scott to get down, but he didn't.
She saw Scott reach for something on his side and then bring his right hand up and point something directly at the officer.
Fee said she couldn’t tell what was in Scott’s hand, but his hand was pointed, “directly at the cop.”
The officer fired, and she looked away while pushing her granddaughter behind her, Fee said.
When she looked back, she saw Scott face-down on the ground and a black object on the ground.
After the shots were fired, she heard a woman screaming, “You shot him, you killed him.”
Fee said she was worried Scott was going to shoot the officer.
“I was hoping he wasn’t going to shoot the cop, but with a gesture like that I thought somebody was going to get shot,” she said.
She told police after the shooting that she didn’t think the officer had any option to shoot Scott.
“Thank God the officer was faster,” she said in her statement to police.
Christopher Villareale, right, who was shopping at Costco the day of the shooting and also is a concealed weapon permit holder, testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010. Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent is at far left.
5:15 p.m.
Christopher Villareale was shopping at Costco the day of the shooting and also is a concealed weapon permit holder.
Villareale said he was one of the last people to leave the store and wasn't far from Scott when he was shot.
He testified that an officer yelled at Scott to get on the ground, “And Mr. Scott is just standing there not doing anything.”
Scott then lifted his shirt with his left hand and someone yelled “no, no,” Villareale said.
Scott then pulled his right arm forward with a gun in his hand, he said.
Villareale said it appeared to him that Scott was holding the gun by the handle, but he couldn't tell if the gun was in a holster since the gun was black.
The officer shot Scott, who turned, dropped the gun, was shot again, then fell to the ground.
Scott’s girlfriend yelled before the shooting that Scott was in the military, and once shots were fired, she became hysterical, Villareale said.
Villareale said he was involved in an incident previously in which he had to pull a gun on somebody, then deal with police when they arrived, so he has safely disarmed with a police officer present.
But Scott didn't respond in a similar and appropriate way, he said.
"He was acting in a way that I would think was not consistent with what would be the appropriate way to act in that situation," Villareale said.
He said he knew the officer thought someone could be harmed during the situation.
"I thought he did the right thing shooting him," Villareale said.
When asked during a question from an interested party, Villareale said it didn't look like Scott was going to hand the gun to the police, but he also didn't point the gun at the officer.
When shown a photo of the gun on the ground outside the store, Villareale said it was the same gun that Scott dropped.
Arlene Houghton, a Costco cashier, testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010.
4:44 p.m.
Arlene Houghton, another Costco cashier, also testified she saw Scott and his girlfriend while they were entering the store.
She said they walked behind her register, coming from the membership desk, when Scott tripped and fell on the belt by the register, even though there was nothing to trip over.
His girlfriend grabbed Scott and propped him up on the shopping cart for support, Houghton said.
Scott looked up at Houghton and said “I guess I really am ('messed') up,” Houghton said, adding that his eyes were glossy.
About an hour later, Houghton said she was near the cash registers helping to evacuate customers when she heard gunshots.
She went toward the entrance and saw a police officer holding a gun so she stayed inside the store, she said.
John Nikitas, a Costco cashier, testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010.
4:24 p.m.
John Nikitas, a Costco cashier, said he saw Erik Scott and a woman walk through the store. He heard Scott say to the woman that he shouldn’t have been in the store while he was drunk, Nikitas said.
He saw Scott knock a “closed” sign off a counter when he walked by, he said.
After being told to evacuate the store, Nikitas said he saw police officers outside.
The officers told Scott to put his hands up and get on the ground, Nikitas said. He said Scott did neither.
He was 40 to 45 feet away when Scott left the building, but the officers were loud so he was able to hear them, he said. Another employee dropped to the ground after hearing the officer, he said.
Scott moved his hand toward his right side and the officers fired at him, he said.
Nikitas said the woman with Scott started screaming after shots were fired. He didn't see a gun fall from Scott's body, but he saw it on the ground later, he said.
Costco shopper Wentworth Eatherton testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010.
3:27 p.m.
Wentworth Eatherton, the husband of the previous witness, Annette, said he called into a public radio program recently when he heard Scott’s father and attorney saying things about the shooting that he said weren't true.
Eatherton said they claimed the police didn't need to shoot Scott and that the police were only 2 feet away, but that wasn’t true, he said.
Eatherton recalled words he heard Scott say while in the aisle at Costco.
"As we went by, Annette and I heard him say, 'well, I can do this in Texas.'" He and his wife talked about what that could mean as they walked down the sporting goods aisle and headed for the lettuce.
Wentworth said he told his wife that the only thing he could think of was that it was a reference to a gun.
"He was acting like he was irritated about the conversation (with the Costco employee)," he said.
Wentworth said that inside the store, he didn't see if Scott had a gun on him.
Eatherton said outside the store they heard an officer tell Scott “don’t touch it,” and “get on the ground.”
He saw Scott move his hand on his right side, then the officer shot him.
After he was shot, he saw a gun in a “gun rug” fall from Scott’s right side and slide about 4 feet in front of him.
He said he later noticed the gun was gone.
Eatherton said the gun in a holster shown to him in a photo by Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent wasn't the gun he saw.
2:58 p.m.
Costco shopper Annette Eatherton testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010.
Las Vegas resident Annette Eatherton was shopping at Costco when she saw Scott in the store and then again outside when he was shot.
Eatherton said she and her husband saw Scott talking to another man in the store where Scott was trying to fit bottles into a bag.
After they were told to evacuate, they went to the front of the store and saw Scott and a police officer.
The officer told Scott to get down on the ground, but Scott moved his hand from the front of him toward his right hip, Eatherton said.
The officer yelled “don’t do that,” but Scott continued to move toward his hip, she said.
The officer then shot Scott, she said. Scott turned after he was shot and fell.
The officer was calm and professional, but was stern, she said.
Scott’s gun, in its holster, fell and slid on the ground toward the officer after Scott was shot, Eatherton said. She heard a woman with Scott screaming after he had been shot.
2:34 p.m.
The assistant store manager who confronted Erik Scott before Scott was shot testified that the man was acting strangely, his eyes were glossed over and “he did not seem right.”
Vince Lopez was called over to talk to Scott by Shai Lierley, a loss prevention supervisor who testified Thursday. On his way to talk to Scott, an older couple approached him and told him they were concerned about a man, who was Scott.
Lopez said he approached Scott and asked him what he was doing. Scott said he was trying to get water bottles to fit in a bag, but Lopez said Scott was trying the same type of bottles over and over again, even though they obviously would not fit, and he had opened multiple packages.
Lierley pointed out that Scott had a gun and Lopez backed off before approaching again to tell Scott that Costco does not allow guns since it is private club and not open to the public, he said.
Costco assistant manager Vince Lopez testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010. Lopez said Scott made what he perceived as a threatening gesture.
Scott became irritated when Lopez told him about the policy, Lopez said. Scott became agitated and began using foul language, he said.
That is when he noticed that Scott’s eyes were glazed over.
Scott held his hands in the shape of a gun and pointed them at Lopez’s head, saying that if someone came in and held a gun to his head that he would take care of it, Lopez said.
Lopez said he was concerned and left Scott alone because he was worried about Scott’s actions.
By then, Lierley was on the phone with 911 and told Lopez to go to the front of the store. The officer told Lopez to not let anyone else in the building and to evacuate the people inside.
Lopez said he then left to help the evacuation and was in the back of the store when he heard gunshots.
In a question submitted by an interested party, Lopez was asked if he felt threatened by Scott.
“He was acting in a very threatening manner when I was talking to him, yes,” Lopez said.
Lopez testified this wasn't the first time the video system had malfunctioned.
"We have had problems off and on with our system," he said.
In fact, it has malfunctioned recently.
"It hasn't worked the past few days -- we just got it back up and running yesterday," he said.
He said he knew of some Costco stores that had no video surveillance at all.
"The security cameras aren't something that we rely on to do our day-to-day business," he said.
Lopez said a number of people would have access to the video equipment before it was taken to see if the video could be recovered, but the managers were told not to touch it.
1:57 p.m.
The coroner’s inquest has resumed after an hour lunch break.
The district attorney is playing the recording of an interview with another Costco customer who lives outside the United States.
Caroline Lagerholm, from Sweden, was visiting when she was at the store and saw police at Costco.
She said she saw a man with his shirt up and a gun at his waist.
Lagerholm said she heard the police officer tell the man to put the gun down, but she saw the man reaching for the gun.
She then turned to run when she heard gunshots, but she didn't know who fired.
Lagerholm said the man was moving kind of slowly as she watched him from near a pillar outside a store. She thought he could have been on drugs, and told the officer the man was "kind of weird-acting."
She said she thought she heard the officer give the man commands.
"I think he said, 'put the gun down, put the gun down.'"
12:42 p.m.
A portion of a transcript from a recorded interview with Lisa Holzgruber, a foreign exchange student, is displayed during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010.
Lisa Holzgruber, a foreign exchange student, was at Costco when she was told by an employee to evacuate.
Holzgruber did not appear at the inquest since she is out of the country, but the district attorney played a recording of an interview with her conducted by police the day of the shooting.
She was outside the store when she saw a police officer and a man near the store's entrance. The man lifted his shirt and she saw a gun in his waistband, Holzgruber said.
The man was “going for the gun with his hand,” she said.
She then heard gunshots and started to run.
Holzgruber said she couldn’t tell what the man was doing; he may have been drawing his gun or maybe he was going to give the gun to the officer, she said.
She said she thinks she heard the officer tell the man to drop the gun, but she wasn't sure.
The inquest is now adjourned an hour for lunch.
12:30 p.m.
Javier Torres, a Costco manager, testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010. Torres also testified that he thought Scott may have been on drugs and was not acting normal.
Javier Torres, a Costco manager, said he saw Scott on his hands and knees in an aisle at the store trying to put bottles into a cooler.
But before he could approach Scott, he says Scott turned and asked him if Costco sold the holders for the bottles. Torres told him no, and Scott seemed a little irritated, Torres said.
Torres said he noticed other store employees were watching Scott, so he left.
“He wasn’t acting normal,” Torres said. Scott seemed agitated, maybe nervous, and possibly impaired.
"He seemed like he was on drugs to me," he said. "I'm not sure what kind of drugs."
Torres later heard instructions to evacuate the store. He was going toward the front of the store when he heard the gunshots, but he didn't see the shooting.
Torres said he didn't think the evacuation was because of Scott; he figured it was because of a bomb threat or something else. Torres said Scott didn't seem violent and he didn't see a gun.
12:10 p.m.
Jerome Dwight Arcano, a Costco employee, testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010. Arcano said he thought Scott might be on drugs.
Jerome Dwight Arcano, a Costco employee, testified that he saw Scott in an aisle at the store throwing things on the ground and trying to tear a box.
“He was acting unusual,” and he seemed paranoid, pacing the aisle like he was worried about someone watching him, Arcano said.
He also said Scott had a red mark on his neck and he thought Scott might be on drugs.
Arcano reported what he saw to management and left the area, he said.
He later heard the store was being evacuated. Arcano said he and other employees and customers ran to the back of the store because they didn't know what was happening.
Javier Torres, a manager at Costco, began testifying after Arcano.
11:47 a.m.
Linda Bem, the Costco employee who helped Scott sign up for a Costco membership, testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010. Bem said Scott had a hard time understanding her instructions and filling out the forms.
Linda Bem, the Costco employee who helped Scott sign up for a Costco membership earlier that day, is testifying.
Bem said Scott had a hard time understanding her instructions and filling out the proper forms.
Scott’s thought process seemed not to be working correctly, she said. Scott was able to have a conversation, but his responses were not as quick as they should have been, she testified.
His handwriting was illegible and he was writing things in the wrong places, Bem said. Scott then had his girlfriend fill out the form for him and she had no problems.
Scott seemed agitated, but wasn't violent, Bem said. She noticed Scott’s knuckles were bleeding.
Bem reported the odd incident to her supervisor.
“I sensed something was terribly wrong,” she said. “He was confused, his thought processes were very, very slow ... Quite frankly, I was worried about him.”
Bem later evacuated the store and heard shots, but didn't see the shooting.
11:40 a.m.
In a recorded interview, Scott’s girlfriend, Samantha Sterner, describes what happened at Costco on July 10.
Sterner said she saw Scott talking to a store employee, but “he was not irritated. The Costco employee did not seem irritated. Neither one of them was hostile.”
She said neither one of them threw anything in the store. Scott went to get another shopping cart, then an employee told her to evacuate, she said.
Scott returned and they agreed to walk out to the car and drop off the gun. She said while they were walking out of the store, they saw a police officer.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent listens as a recorded interview with Erik Scott's girlfriend, Samantha Sterner, is played during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010.
“He immediately draws his weapon, immediately, without hesitation,” Sterner said in the recording.
The officers told Scott to get on the ground, she said. Scott put his hands above his head, tried to tell the officer he was going to disarm and then slowly moved his right hand down to the gun, Sterner said.
Sterner said she kept screaming at the officer: “'Do not shoot, he’s a concealed weapons holder, he’s a military officer, do not shoot.'”
“I said it a million times,” she said.
She said the officer shot Scott once, then Scott started to fall back before the officer shot him twice more. She said she didn't see any other officers fire.
Sterner said in the recording she thinks the officer would have fired no matter what Scott did.
“He was extremely aggressive from the get-go,” she said. “I just think this officer was out of line.”
Sterner also said Scott never held the gun by the handle and it never came out of the holster, but he did hold the front of the gun to try to disarm.
11:03 a.m.
Falkner said he tried to contact Scott’s girlfriend, Samantha Sterner, but the phone number he had for her was not working. He left a subpoena with a man who said he was her brother at an address he found for her.
Falkner then said he contacted family attorney Ross Goodman, who said he wasn't sure if she would appear.
Since she never was found, she wasn't legally served with a subpoena to appear.
Falkner said he also ran into Goodman at the courthouse and asked him to provide a list of witnesses, but Goodman has not done so, Falkner said.
Goodman has told the media he has other witnesses to the shooting who haven't been contacted by the district attorney’s office.
The attorneys are now playing a recording of an interview done with Sterner on the day of the shooting.
“He carries a gun everywhere he goes. This has never happened before,” Sterner said in the recording after describing being asked to evacuate the store by a Costco employee.
10:46 a.m.
William Falkner, investigative supervisor for the District Attorney's Office, testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010. Falkner described his efforts to contact Erik Scott's girlfriend and other witnesses.
Erik Scott’s girlfriend was subpoenaed to appear at today's coroner's inquest, but has not done so, said William Falkner, an investigator in the district attorney's office.
Falkner had asked Ross Goodman, the Scott family attorney, if there were any other witnesses he wanted to testify.
Reports have indicated Goodman has 20 to 30 witnesses to testify, but he has not provided a list of them to the DA despite being asked in phone messages and in person.
The inquest is taking a 10-minute break.
10:27 a.m.
William Falkner, an investigator in the district attorney's office, is next to testify.
Mosher has finished answering questions from interested parties. About 200 questions were submitted for Mosher, many with multiple parts, but not all were asked by the judge, who said some had already been answered or weren't appropriate.
Mosher said he didn't expect Scott to walk out of the store. “We were in a standby mode waiting,” he said.
The officers were waiting for their sergeant and more officers to arrive before coming up with a plan to enter the store and make contact with Scott, possibly with a shield and some less-lethal weapons, Mosher said.
Mosher described the gun recovered at the scene as a Kimber 9mm, still in its holster. He said he believes the holster is manufactured by Uncle Mike's, and it is similar to one he owns for one of his guns.
The holster is made of cloth, he says. Although he personally hasn't tried it, he said he believes a person could slip their finger inside the holster and fire the gun without removing it from the holster.
A second firearm was found on Scott's body by medical personnel in the ambulance while he was being taken to UMC, Mosher said he later learned.
10:19 a.m.
When questioned about why he didn't use a nonlethal method to resolve the situation with Scott, Mosher said, "We're not trained to subdue people with a firearm with nonlethal means."
Asked if he ever used his crisis skills with Scott, Mosher said, “I would like to have done that and taken him into custody without this happening, but there was no chance to do that.”
The officer said he drew his weapon before reaching the store entrance.
Mosher said he knelt on Scott’s back to handcuff him. He didn't see a large amount of blood, but he did see bullet holes.
Most other people in the area got away quickly when they saw the officers with their guns drawn, Mosher said.
Ross Goodman, attorney for the Scott family, speaks to the court during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010.
10:04 a.m.
One question from an interested party -- which includes Erik Scott's family and Ross Goodman, the family's attorney -- asked Officer William Mosher if it was typical for an officer to pull his weapon several hundred times in a few years. Mosher said it is normal for a Las Vegas officer to pull his weapon frequently.
Asked what makes someone a deadly threat, Mosher said: “Their actions.”
But Scott was not a threat until he reached for his weapon, Mosher said.
“As soon as he reached for it, he was a deadly threat,” he said.
Mosher said he followed procedure to handcuff Scott after he was shot, but did not follow procedure to search the body because he felt Scott was already deceased and he did not want to move the body. He did not think Scott would be taken to the hospital, he said.
He also said there were only a few officers at Costco to deal with a large crowd of people that had gathered and what had become an active crime scene. He took charge as senior officer to assign other officers to put up crime scene tape and move Scott’s girlfriend, who was screaming, Mosher said.
9:43 a.m.
Under questioning, Mosher describes himself as a believer in the 2nd Amendment and says he is a member of the National Rifle Association.
Metro Police Officer William Mosher testifies for a second day during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010.
"I think CCW is a great thing," he said.
However, Mosher said it is illegal in Nevada to carry a weapon when under the influence of drugs or alcohol, so police had an obligation to investigate the calls they received about Scott.
The officers had been told Scott might have been high and Mosher said he noticed the man’s bloodshot eyes.
Mosher testified that he didn't administer CPR to Scott after the shooting and he didn't see anyone else perform CPR.
He also said he had been told Scott refused to leave the business, but the main motivation for his response was because of the way he was acting in the store and the fact that he had a weapon.
9:22 a.m.
Metro Police Officer William Mosher, one of three officers who shot Erik Scott, said he is a member of Metro's crisis intervention team and has gone through extra training to deal with situations that might involve people with mental issues.
Normally he would try to talk to a suspect in an incident, Mosher said, but since Scott had a gun, he said that wasn't possible.
“With the details we had and the fact that he had a weapon, that’s not really the time to talk,” Mosher said.
He also said he only observed Scott’s behavior for about 30 seconds between the time Scott was pointed out to him and shots were fired.
Mosher, who is a Marine, said Scott, a West Point graduate, should have known how to safely surrender a weapon to an officer, but he didn't act in an appropriate way.
One of the written questions directed at Mosher asked if he felt any remorse for shooting and killing Erik Scott.
He responded: "Remorse? Absolutely."
8:50 a.m.
The coroner’s inquest into the shooting death of Erik Scott on July 10 outside a Summerlin Costco has started for the day.
Officer William Mosher, one of three Metro officers who shot Scott, has returned to the stand to answer questions submitted to Judge Tony Abbatangelo by interested parties.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent, left, confers with Assistant District Attorney Chris Owens during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010.
8:42 a.m.
The coroner's inquest into the death of Erik Scott by Metro Police is running behind schedule this morning.
The jurors and judge entered the courtroom just before 8:40 a.m. The proceedings were to begin at 8 a.m., but at 8:30 a.m. court officials were testing audio in an overflow room. Inside the courtroom, officials with the district attorney's office and Scott family attorney Ross Goodman were waiting before the arrival of the judge and jury.
Officer William Mosher’s testimony is scheduled to resume this morning with questions from interested parties, which includes the Erik Scott family and Goodman. Mosher is one of the three officers who fired his weapon at Scott, killing him.
Scott was killed July 10 at the Summerlin Costco.
Also, it's been learned that an agenda item has been filed with the Clark County Commission regarding the inquest process. Commissioner Steve Sisolak filed the item for the board's Oct. 5 meeting.
Sisolak's request says the item is "to discuss and make recommendations regarding the Coroner's Inquest Process, Clark County Code 2.12.080. This discussion is meant to include possible changes to said code, the possible formation of an advisory committee to make recommendations in this regard and/or the presentation of various processes that are currently in place in other jurisdictions, and other areas or issues related to the coroners inquest process which may be presented. This item is meant for discussion purposes, staff direction and possible action."
The Scott family, through its attorney, responded by releasing a statement at 6:43 a.m. today.
"We are very excited with the request by Commissioner Sisolak to place this item on the October 5th agenda to begin the discussions and consider the recommendations for change to the Coroner's Inquest Process. The process we have experienced over the last two days limit's our ability to find the truth by properly questioning witnesses regarding their testimony. We do not have the knowledge of their recorded statements. Challenging the last few day's testimony with facts that we know to be true is not possible given this process. We thank Commissioner Sisolak and the other Commissioners who will support this request. It is our hope that the Commission can find a place to give credit to our son Erik. His death then would not have been meaningless, but rather a catalyst for improving the Coroner's Inquest process for the community of Las Vegas."
All these cops have to say is that I was in fear of my life, and he made a furtive movement and they get a free pass.
Just ask Bryan Yant. Looks like "Curly" Bill Mosher gets to upgrade his membership in the Southern Nevada Gun Club. Wonder when he'll get a third notch on his gunbelt.
These days you could sneeze and end up shot.Something fishy is going on with this whole deal or it would have been an open and shut case.If his family hadn't fought to keep this in the public eye it would have been.
You know i am glad the testimony is coming out the way it is. everyone has been condemning the cops. the family has been paying for ad space on billboards. listen your son obviously had emotional problems and on top of that he was carrying a gun. he was in some sort of distress. SO THE COPS DEFENDED THEMSELVES. they have that right.. I am sorry for your families loss however i am sure you knew there were problems. how does one get ahold of so many drugs?
Hey z-white-knight and stinkingzombie65
And what would YOU two rocket scientists have done in the same situation as Mosher? That's after you peed in your pants and started to cry......
Real easy to "second guess" a cop's reaction when you've never have come remotely close to being in the same situations. .
NOTE TO Nevada voters: Recall the sheriff, and then you might see some fair law enforcement instead of renegades roaming the streets . . .
Mosher should not be armed either. He said it was 30 seconds from the time he SAW Scott and the shooting. In that time, he walked to Scott (either grabbed his arm or didn't -- conflicting stories), NOTICED HIS BLOODSHOT EYES?????, issued THREE conflicting commands after grabbing the arm of someone (or maybe not grabbing depending on who is correct), saw a gun pointed at him but the same guy that can notice bloodshot eyes in an instant, failed to notice the gun was still in a holster???
I would like to see a picture of the gun in the holster to see if the trigger guard was exposed.
There is NO WAY I WANT THIS OFFICER TO HAVE HIS GUN DRAWN ANYWHERE NEAR ME AND MY CHILDREN.
Las Vegas and Nevada will try to whitewash this. Feds will have to intervene for an OBJECTIVE investigation since all videos have mysteriously disappeared. Polygraphs need to be involved. Sending Cops to jail is not easy, but can be done when warranted.
I do not think any cop should be going to jail over this. I think there are problems throughout the system. Mosher did not leave his house intending to kill someone, it is just a serious of very unfortunate events. That is what training and regulations are for. Mosher should not be on the force. The other two shooters are just YOUNG and started firing in reaction. NONE OF THEM should have been in this situation, the three of them should be still perfecting how to write a proper traffic ticket.
Maybe the Metro Officers that shot Erik Scott were HIGH ON DRUGS! Why do they not take blood (for drug testing) from the officers on the scene of a shooting? Why do they not investigate the mental health of the Officer after a shooting? Why is the victim vilified? Metro officer Mosher killed Erik Scott in cold blood. This officer needs to be tested for psychopathic behavior/illnesses!
@Leem
Yeah, maybe their are tooth fairies as well
More cop haters. Have some respect for someone with a difficult, stressful job. Erik Scott caused this tragedy. Not Metro police. Lay the blame where it belongs. Erik Scott was the catalyst for the events.
Ehhh, wise guy huh? Take this....nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
Looks like this guys decision making is as in tune as his physical abilities.
Comment removed by moderator. Personal attack.
Leem,
do you even know what the term "Cold Blod" means?
@ Det_Munch--once you get off of Metro's payroll and quit acting like you are some kind of one man army we will all might begin to take you seriously. I'm guessing that you are about five feet tall and drive a Ford pick-up truck with big tires--It's called "Little man's complex". Anyway, I digress. WE MUST VOTE OUT DOUG GILLESPIE!!! Our police force is out of control and I don't want any more INNOCENT PEOPLE LIKE ERIK SCOTT (...and others) to die at the hands of these renegade monsters. Recent events have demonstrated to me that Metro thugs are not only allowed to ESCALATE situations that could easily be handled non-lethally, but I sense that our police force TAKES GREAT JOY IN KILLING OUR CITIZENS, getting paid time off to go vacation on our dime then HAVING NO ACCOUNTABILITY AFTER THE FACT!!! LET'S WAKE UP PEOPLE AND TAKE BACK CONTROL OF OUR POLICE FORCE!!! WE NEED TO CONTACT OUR CONGRESSMEN AND DEMAND OUTSIDE (FEDERAL) OVERSITE, AND END THIS BLOODBATH!!!
good luck SUN in sustaining this forum,with your new verification
This same story a week ago would have garnished huge response,instead you now have the same 9 posters commenting
Good Luck with that
peace out
I want to know why so many of the above posters here and on other strings relating to this story are condemning the actions of Officer Mosher in this situation? Have any of YOU been in the same situation? Have any of YOU had to make a split second decision involving your life and the lives of others?
It's easy to pass judgment when no one knows all the facts. For the store employee(s) to call 911 meant something. They felt that Mr. Scott was a threat in some way and acted accordingly. They didn't do it because the customer is upset over the price of something. Say what you will about store clerks, but calling 911 is the last resort to a situation that regular store security cannot handle. There was a reason for it. It wasn't done because Mr. Scott was just "carrying". There was more to it. Believe it or don't.
I'm not saying Mr. Scott deserved to die, but all of you, who are so quick to judge Metro and point out so many things like quotes from the Constitution from time to time to saying there is a conspiracy starting with Costco and Metro to getting the Feds involved, no one knows anything more than anyone else at this point. That is why there is this inquest.
It's like one huge lynch mob on these boards waiting to lynch up the next cop who does his job regardless. And like I stated in another thread - if the deceased was some illegal gang banging drug dealer - you'd all be going "go Metro for doing your jobs". It seems in this situation you're all just waiting to hear that you are all right in assuming the cops were wrong in this when it very well may prove they were right.
Wait until ALL the evidence is in and ALL the witnesses speak before passing judgment.
Based on testimony I heard Mosher walked up behind Erik and grabbed his right arm without stating he was the police first. Erik may have felt someone was making an attempt to grab his gun which would put him into a defensive position resulting in him trying to maintain control of it. Why did the police feel it necessary to ambush a shopper leaving a store versus walking up to him and talking to him? He had not threatened anyone in the store AND stated he was permitted to carry a weapon which the police knew upon arrival.
I can see officers in Las Vegas pulling their firearm a hundred times a year. Just look at the number of vehicles with dark tinting on their windows, you cannot even see in the vehicle at all. In California its against the law to have tinting that prevents an officer from looking into a vehicle. Anytime an officer responds to a call where a weapon is involved, they will usually have drawn their weapon. The Scott's need to realize that Erik made too many mistakes and its clear to me he wanted to end his life, and he should of did it himself. He involved the whole city of Las Vegas and now three officers must live with the fact that they had to use deadly force. When you kill a person whether in war or on the job, that killing lives with you the rest of your life, some recover, other cannot. Its clear to me that Bill Scott is making this his own campaign because he blieves his son can do no wrong, this point was proven when his attorney made the statement that Erik had put his weapons down, which is totally false, and the fact that he was not present at the scene. They are trying to sway public opinion, but the fact remains, if Erik would had just put his weapons down, laid on the ground and did everything officers requested he would be alive today. Erik choose a different path, by his actions, his state of mind and the drugs in his system. Erik was a loose cannon ready to go off at anytime, his life was in a tail spin which there was no way out. His parents failed to reailize his state and friends ignored all the signs. People officers do not want to use deadly force, but most people leave no choice. I'll say it once again, people will not hesitate to do as a criminal says, but when it comes to the police they challenge them everytime.
@ BrianJ--EXCELLENT OBSERVATIONS!!! I wondered the same thing about Officer Curly's ability to notice Erik's bloodshot eyes and yet somehow miss the fact that the gun was still in the holster! I also noticed from the 911 tape exactly how CONFUSING those commands were. Just imagine how unsettling that would be to walk out of a store still unsure as to why everyone is getting evacuated, then getting yelled at (or grabbed on the arm) apparently from behind or the side and finally told to do three different things in about the span of .3 seconds. Any reasonable person is going to be startled and ANY ONE OF US COULD HAVE DIED THAT DAY!! I have children and I don't want them to end up like this! I AM ALSO NEVER SHOPPING AT COSTCO AGAIN!!! In my opinion, Shay is just as culpable as Officer Curly. What I think really happened is that Shay was jealous that Erik was a good-looking guy (with a beautiful girlfriend) and probably wanted to use his managerial authority to embarrass Erik by ordering him to get out of the store (in a condescending manner). When Erik chose to take his time leaving the store (probably to spite Shay's condescending tone) Shay figured that he could escalate the situation and call the cops to fully assert his power over him. In the end and innocent man died at the hands of a underachieving high-school loser slash Costco employee (Shay)and a trigger-happy cop (Mosher)!!
@TomD1228
Yeah I do not support psychopathic killer cops running lose in our community! I respect the majority of fine officers providing a valuable service to our community.
-lvstrip-
Cold Blood not as you mentioned "Cold Blod"...
..."Cold Blood is used to describe an account of a gruesome crime, principally in case of a brutal killing or a murder. Cold blood is a word usually picked to describe a horrific execution of innocent victim, so drastically unsettling that it makes it doubtful to imagine the perpetrator to be a human being."
Erik Scott was shot in front of 40-50 people, including children while complying with Officers Moshers command to drop the gun. Funny how Moshers has stated several times that he did not issue this order. The 911 tape revealed that he lied under oath. Funny how he states that he did not know if the gun was holstered. He wants us to believe that he never saw the gun (holstered or otherwise laying next to Erik) while handcuffing the deceased (his words) Erik Scott. Moshers vision was good enough to put a 45 caliber round through Erik's heart, but missed seeing the gun lying on the ground in front of him...give me a break!!!
Innocent? The evidence is he was in a drug induced haze. Carrying a gun, therefore it is illegal.
Why would you want to defend a person who has no respect for people. I feel for the Costco people who had to deal with a jerk-off. $8/hour for someone to swear at you? Erik Scott sounds like he was a nasty person. Who here would treat an employee in that manner?
It's terrible he died, but he was the catalyst for the events. Not metro.
Are you Metro haters even listening to the evidence? The 911 call said he pulled his pistol. The police scanner tape on Youtube has a recording that says he pulled his pistol. The guy was higher than a kite and didn't do what Metro told him to do.
He threatened our officers and he got himself killed. Period.
@TomD1228 and Det_Munch: Hey, maybe the two of you can get together and go out for ice cream sometime...or car pool to work together (...since you both are on Metro's payroll). Regardless of your attempts to cover up Metro's recent needless bloodshed and taking of innocent lives, you will fail! Reasonable people can see through this travesty! DOUG GILLESPIE MUST GO!! Let's just hope that the new sheriff will address this huge problem!!
So the girlfriend chickened out. And don't you conspiracy hacks say Metro threatened her NOT to testify. Maybe Scott's family did. But she was subpoenaed. She is going to have to show up at some point.
The evidence shows he didn't "pull his pistol."
The evidence shows that a cop, who was jacked out of his mind on adrenaline, issued a series of conflicting orders in rapid succession. No one, whether sober or not could have complied with the orders issued by officer Curly.
Erik Scott chose to stand still, raise his one hand (put your hands up) and withdraw his firearm WHILE STILL HOLSTERED to "drop it."
He was in compliance with the officer's orders, and the cop shot him. I don't think the cop intended to shoot him, I think the cop panicked.
Panic is not an excuse for homicide. Remember, this is the second person that Bill Mosher has killed. This guy deserves to be under the harshest magnifying glass possible.
This might not be a criminal homicide, but it is certainly negligent. Since this is a betting town, I put my money on Metro losing the civil case, and losing it big.
The odd thing about the girlfriend is that Erik Scotts father said he was receiving treatment and medication from a doctor that she worked for. The doctor denied ever seeing Erik or prescribing medication for him. When asked, the doctor said she had been terminated.
Ridiculous that his girlfriend doesn't want to show up.
Hey Dale. DetMunch is right on target. He's been a voice of reason.
Guess the girlfriend didn't want to give even more damaging testimony against Scott. Scott's parents probably paid her to go into hiding. Would have been easier for her to just lie under oath.
Andy why did Goodman (Scott family attorney) not provide the names of witnesses to the DA when asked to do so numerous times. Hmmmmm.....
Comment removed by moderator. Personal attack.
Las Vegas Metro is the most corrupt police unit in the nation. Munch don't you have a nazi meeting to attend? Please go away your presence here is insultiing.
On Goodman; He probably is holding them back for the civil trial (where there is an attorney representing each side, not this french system of inquest).
On the Girlfriend: I was wondering if she was going to show considering she was fired from a doctor's office and there seems to be a little confusion on where he got this amount of prescription drugs.....His legit scripts do not add up to the amount in his system.
The girlfriend probably didn't want her name dragged through the mud.
Hold Sheriff Gillespie responsible. It doesn't make sense that these people make claims supporting a Constitutional right to own a gun, yet they resort to deadly force when they encounter a person exercising that right.
Whether it is illegal to carry a gun while someone is under the influence is not an issue here. And why would you address the issue of a prior encounter with Erik involving a gun? What relevance does that have in justifying the killing of Erik? If you claim it is relevant, then why not look into the officers background for misconduct? Logic? Erik did a bad thing before, therefore it could explain a pattern of conduct. Well, the same flows for the officer....the officer did a bad thing before, therefore it could explain a pattern of conduct. It swings both ways.
@TomD1228 - Are you challenged? Are you saying that carrying a gun while under the influence justifies killing a person? The officers didn't know if Erik was under the influence. A person who has no respect for people deserves to be shot by police? Why are you making such blatantly bogus comments?
How is it possible that Erik was a "deadly threat" when the facts show that Erik was asked to put his weapon down? How is he going to put his weapon down without reaching for his gun and putting it down as instructed?
The Sheriff must resign. This man was killed because of poor training. The Sheriff is responsible and he should be held accountable, in addition to holding these officers accountable for their negligence.
An innocent person was killed - because of poor training by officers. It is self-evident that these people are poorly trained and lack the discipline in handling matters of this nature.
The sad part about this - You have a sorry "Prevention" loss specialist who obviously didn't do his job, he concluded Erik was acting erratically, even though the facts show that Erik was NOT committing a crime in the store, and this poor judgment was passed on to officers who magnified the poor judgment by failing to act like trained officers, jumping to conclusion and making a situation something that it was clearly NOT.
At most, Erik had an encounter with store employees who were NOT trained to deal with these encounters. A common ordinary fact pattern that is all too common. Unfortunately, when you have an incompetent person making decision and you add more incompetence with poorly trained and undisciplined officers, you get this kind of result.
Erik's death is a result of incompetence and poor training. Sheriff Gillespie needs to be held accountable for the incompetence of his officers.
Now, if we can get a fair inquest and allow the Family's attorney to be a part of the process, maybe we people would better understand the incompetence that occurred that horrible day.
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.
tomd; sorry was typing my post about girlfriend before yours was up so I have now duplicated your point. She probably does not want to convict herself on the scripts.
Can somebody please explain to me why Scott even reached for his gun in the first place. Isn't that the LAST thing you want to do when there are police officers there shouting commands at you?
Erik Scott reached for his gun because he told the cop "I have a gun" and the cop screamed "drop it."
Unless you want to believe the cop, who wants us to believe that he didn't say "drop it."
But then we can listen to the 911 call where he clearly yells "drop it."
And remember, the cop is the one who told us that Scott informed the officer that he was carrying. Without being prompted to do so.
"The police have been primed to kill"
Your words are bit heavy handed. All police are trained that if you must unholster your gun, be prepared to use it. They are NOT "primed to kill". Cops are trained to use their weapons ONLY if necessary. They are faced with making serious decisions in a split second. Decisions that most people here are not even capable of thinking of, let alone experiencing. It's easy to talk "murder" when you are sitting at home on your computer passing judgment on an incident you were not witness to. It seems every witness so far has been credible - except the girlfriend. She is no where to be found. BS to that. If she wants her boyfriend's death to be vindicated, don't you think she would have wanted to be a witness?? To be at this inquest? For the Scott family if anyone? She was there. She knows what happened both inside and outside the store.
red;
A video may help answer that but I would assume. Cop grabs his arm, Scott reaches for gun to keep it secure (Scott cannot know that it is a cop and it might be someone grabbing his weapon), Scott sees cop and hears hands up (or just sees the cop) and as his CCW training told him to (calmly informs cop he has a gun), Cop then says the hands up, (then cop brain processes the "I have a gun") and yells Drop it, Scott then assumes the answer to his "I have a gun" is to remove and drop the gun. Then everything goes haywire.
redmage--do you think this is plausible?
det munch;
this is not the forum (the inquest) to vindicate the shooting victim. The inquest process ensures that CANNOT happen. I would assume if you expect to see her it will only be at the civil trial (or at the negligence trial of Mosher (but I give that 1 in 1,000 chance of occurring). Plus there is the prescriptions..... She might have reason for being scarce.
The girlfriend loved Erik soooo much, and wanted to see justice for his murder, that she did not appear in court to testify. To say she did not know of the court date (Inquest) is silly, since she could call his family anytime and it's been in the news non stop. They say she cant be contacted/found, but know one is worried if she is a missing person or called police to report her gone !!
Det_Munch wrote : "Your words are bit heavy handed."
Not heavy handed at all . . . I spoke the truth and so did you.
You also wrote: "All police are trained that if you must unholster your gun, be prepared to use it"
The Officer had already as you said unholstered his gun, and he was primed to use it. He didn't spend much time figuring out if Eric Scott was a danger, he just shot him and his fellow officers followed his lead.
So you want the family and friends of a guy who was killed by police to call those very same police to search for someone who witnessed the incident and may have information that contradicts the official version of events?
Think that she might have a little reason to be frightened of the cops? That there might be trust issues there?
Think the family might not be interested in helping the police whitewash their son's killing?
<Scott put his hands above his head, tried to tell the officer he was going to disarm and then slowly moved his right hand down to the gun...>
Therein lies Mr. Scott's fatal mistake. He should have known better; should have just got down as instructed and NOT reach for the gun.
I find it intersting the girlfriend didn't show up for the inquest. Was it because she didn't want to relive the incident or because she knew if she testified truthfully she would be throwing Scott "under the bus"?
I also find it intersting that Goodman either wouldn't or refused to provide the DA's office with his 20-30 people who witnessed the incident and said they didn't see a gun.
good point LVMP, that is another consideration (other than my prescription assumption OR that she thinks this process is of no use) and may show up when goodman brings in all the other witnesses at a different venue.
Here the family has his girlfriend to testify...and she no-shows. Nice. Very responsible. Let's hear the excuses.
She was there. In my mind she could have cleared up a lot of questions for the family.
What a reject.
Voice: If you assume goodman is going to be grandstanding at a civil trial and he and the family think the inquest is a farce, shouldn't you assume he does not want to show Metro what he is going to present at the civil trial?
BrianJ:
Of course it is all conjecture without video, but your scenario is possible. I still don't understand why he reached for his gun after told to put his hands up and why everybody thinks the commands where hard to follow. I understand reaching for gun when somebody grabs his shoulder. As soon as he saw it was an officer with his gun pulled he should have raised his hands with palms open and stated I have a gun (which he did). That way the cops would have seen nothing in his raised hands. To me, "drop it" does not mean "pull out your firearm and place it on the ground". Common sense tells me that any reaching for the gun after an officer with a drawn gun yells hands up to me will escalate the situation. Period.
How would I have handled it (not that I would ever put myself in such a situation but I digress)? Walk out of store, somebody grabs my shoulder. I probably would have reached for my gun but would not have pulled it out. I would have seen an officer and IMMEDIATELY FROZE. When told to raise my hands I would have done so with open palms. If told to drop it because the cop processed me telling him I had a gun I would have told him "MY GUN IS STILL IN MY HOLSTER" while my hands stayed up instead of reaching for the gun. Let the officer approach me and remove the weapon. To me that is common sense. But then again Scott was on a lot of drugs so his mind was probably clouded and he acted stupidly.
Had the audio said "remove your gun", or "pull out your gun and drop it" then the officer involved should have been disciplined immediately for illogical commands resulting in death. But that's not what the audio says.
lemahj:
Very rarely are police instructed to "shoot to kill" but sometimes the alleged bad guy does get killed. It is in extreme circumstances that that order is issued. My ex always told me they were instructed to aim for areas that would maim and not kill such as an arm,leg, shoulder, knees. Places to neutralize the person so they can't run or endanger anyone else. (But then this is old school police training; maybe today and especially in Vegas they are trained differently). Those "shoot to kill" orders are only reserved for extreme cases, ie a most wanted fugitive, cop killers (personal preference on the "shoot to kill" order - you kill a cop and they find you, you won't live to see another minute) a murderer, members of Al Quaida or any terrorist.
And I agree with your statement that the cop didn't spend much time assessing the situation before gunning down Mr. Scott. But again --- when Scott reached for his gun, even though he was "surrendering" -- that sealed it. He never should have done that; he knew better.
"The officers told Scott to get on the ground, she said. Scott put his hands above his head, tried to tell the officer he was going to disarm and then slowly moved his right hand down to the gun, Sterner said."
Horrible mistake by Scott. I don't believe he intended to hurt the police or anybody else. But if that is really how it happened (why would his girlfriend lie?) the shooting is justified. I don't care who you are, you don't try and disarm after the police tell you to raise your hands and you have already done so. Scott made a terrible mistake (probably because of the meds he was on) which resulted in his death. Justified shooting by the police because they have no idea how he is going to reach after he pulls his weapon.
I forgot to add that when a gun is pointed at a cop or there is a possibility a gun is going to be aiming at a cop, yes, instinct takes over and the one holding the gun at the cop is not going to end up in a good way. Do I think Metro over reacted to Mr. Scott? In hindsight - yes; but at the time - no.
Family says it has 20-30 witnesses but refuses to provide them or have them testify?
What is wrong with people that they have all that and use drugs. Is it this town? What a waste. Scott was one of the luckiest guys in the US and he blew it by using (no ABUSING) drugs.
Gets a great FREE education at West Point, and then wins the lottery because he is a tank commander at a time when we are moving most of our tanks out of europe, so he gets out with only 2 of 5 years served.
Duke MBA (not the greatest MBA, but damn good), gets through the real estate crisis and LANDS a six figure SECURE job in healthcare. Has a hot girlfriend and yet chooses to pop pills.
What a waste.
Also, question for you guys that carry everywhere: Do any of you carry two guns as a rule? Or was this the drugs making him paranoid and a little crazy?
I could see if I was secret service needing the "extra" weapon just in case but a pacemaker salesman?
Bottom line is none of us saw what happened. We all have opinions but they are just that, opinions, not facts.
There are many more witnesses yet and each of them will see something different depending on where they where and what their frame of mind was at the time.
Many of the posters here seem to think all cops are bad, not the case. we don't know that this cop is bad.
Facts will come out and my personal opinion is this is being set for a lawsuit no matter how it comes out.
Many things are not right with what has been said so far but saving my full opinion until I hear more out of the mouths of people that saw what happened.
Wondering why Mr. Goodman has not turned in his list of witnesses and why the girl friend did not show up for court?
he was told to get on the ground and he reached for his gun instead... game over.
LOL the girlfriend didn't show. Goodman will not release his list of supposed witnesses. LOL, Where are all of the Metro conspiracy theorist on that one? Why are they not saying Goodman isn't covering up? Or perhaps Metro waited until the inquest to release facts, unlike the Scott family and Goodman who could only release speculation LOL.
Secondly are some of you posting even watching this inquest? When were conflicting commands given? You tell some one to get on the ground, if they then proceed to go for their gun you tell them to drop it.
Metro does not need additional training. If someone points a gun at you, your reaction time better be sharp there is no time to wait; Here are some videos that prove that. After watching them ask, why didn't the police wait to shoot or just talk to the poor innocent person:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2nYBRDNW...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJdy_OPw-...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY7ExYxG8...
And here's why a cop doesn't tackle someone with a gun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb94Jlo-0...
Training, training then more training is what is needed. OK, I'm just an un-trusted commenter that has an opinion. Costco Loss Prevention along with store management blew their assignment when they failed to approach Erik together. Safety in numbers there, not to mention another witness should the conversation go wrong. The dispatcher probably will need some extra classroom time as well for their failure to properly relay the 911 call without the drama. A cooler head could have prevailed there. The Three Stu.. er, I mean Officers land on the beach and appear to handle a dangerous situation by winging it with no plan and no back-up. Again, safety in numbers there as well. Why not have all the Officers, led by Mosher, approach Erik from the front and do some real police work and arrest him? If they knew the Erik was the guy, why not just tackle him and put him on the ground?? Can't do that because you're too out of shape? C'mon, All of you, back to class. There were more bad decisions made in those 30 seconds by Mosher then there were by Erik. Pray for them all.
vegaslee
Couldn't agree more. Also, I, too, was wondering why Goodman didn't turn in his witness list. What also just occurred to me, in the girlfriend's taped interview, it sounds as if she was not with him the whole time in the store. She says things like "she saw Scott talking to a store employee". If you are WITH the person, you would say "Eric talked to a store employee". Then "Scott went to get another shopping cart, then an employee told her to evacuate". Don't know about anyone else, but when shopping with your "significant other", you kinda stay together in the store. But then like most couples - one goes one way and the other goes the other. Or maybe she wanted to distance herself from him because he was acting like a jerk. Who knows and we probably will never know. But it seems strange she did not show up to testify. AND they can't seem to find her! I guess it's one thing to say things over the phone without looking at the person asking the questions, and another answering those questions in person. I also don't buy any of the arguments that will surface about her being "too distraught" to testify. If it was MY boyfriend that was wrongly gunned down by the police, I sure as hell would want to tell my side of the story for BOTH of us.....
Where there are 2 sides to a story, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
Boys & girls, can you say "Civil Suit"?
Sure. I knew you could.
Can you say "a really big number"?
Very good, boys & girls.
It's over. Family will not provide witnesses. Girlfriend a no show. Goodman repeatedly complaining about process and claims they have all these witnesses but fails to provide a single one...why make the grandstand about all these witnesses that will refute testimony and then fail to provide a single one.
If the intent is to try this in civil court. Why make all these statements about witnesses. If your intent is to prove the DA witnesses have lied during a civil try why claim to have your own witnessES. Wouldn't you just let the process play out and then announce you have witnesses.. then let your witnesses destroy the credibility of the DA's?
Family attorney is either stupid, misguided or has no clue what he is doing.
lampshade:
The only attorneys who are well versed in this type of legal proceeding are the lawyers in the DA's office who have a 99.9% perfect track record of "clearing" cops.
Why?
Because no other lawyers are allowed to participate in the process. That is Goodman's point. His actions have put this whole b.s. process under a microscope and he's shown all of us how easy it is for the system to push an agenda that goes against the public interest.
Good on Mr. Goodman for calling shenanigans here.
I can't wait to see the dollar figure Metro shells out. And I hope that the Scott family chooses not to settle out of court. We all deserve to hear both sides in court. Thus far, we haven't.
Me thinks the fat-azzed cop uses his gun to prove his manhood. The guy is falling backwards and the cop pumps two more rounds into him. Overkill, ya think? He wouldn't be able to chase a perp in his obese condition so he would let a bullet do the chasing for him. How does a fat-azzed cop like him keep his job? Don't they have physical requirements anymore? Metro obviously doesn't have good mental health requirements.
If the girlfriend were to tstify, she would have her character examined (assassinated). Do I hear "Have you ever provided drugs or a prescription to Mr. Scott?"
She can not refuse to answer under the fifth amendment if granted immunity. If she refuses, she can be jailed under contempt. She has nothing to gain and everything to loose. She screws up her life. Employment and marriageability opportunities fade. Then again, I suppose she could always say "I do not recall", but that didn't help much in the Watergate hearing very much, did it? Sure, she should testify, but it's going to cost her.
Such a tragedy. I'm wondering if anybody is gonna sit down and discuss what they could have done differently. Security, management, service desk, dispatch, The Police, Mosher, The Girl Friend, Eriks enablers, Plenty of blame to go around here. Let us not forget that there is a victim, the dead guy, Erik. I bet he would love to have a do-over.
As I expected from following this story from the beginning, it was a good shoot. It's too bad it happened, but the police were definitely in the right. All of the testimony indicated Scott was in the wrong and it cost him his life..
Once the test results come back, we will find out he was high on something.. Drugs and guns don't mix...!
I have a few questions: "Mosher described the gun recovered at the scene as a Kimber 9mm, still in its holster" if the firearm was in its holster how could Erik have pointed it at officers??? If he did pull the firearm and holster out of his waistband to disarm wouldn't Officer Mosher have seen the firearm was still in the holster since he was apparently close enough to see Erik's bloodshot eyes?
If you google "Uncle Mike's Cloth Holster" you can see that a firearm in a holster is covered (don't misread that as you still couldn't shot the firearm with the holster on - I don't have one so I have no clue if you can or not), but if it was the intent of the holder to fire their firearm wouldn't they pull it out of the holster???
I'm not saying Erik was perfect, he would probably still be alive today if he had laid down and let the officers disarm him (even if an officer tells you to disarm you shouldn't do it yourself as this may be misconstrued that are pulling out your firearm to shot them), just lay down and let the officers disarm you. But, was this a mistake punishable by death?? I don't think so!!!
No matter what happens, this is a tragic event for ALL parties involved. Mistakes were made all over, on Erik's part and on all of the officers involved. Hopefully some good will come of this, whether it be a change to the "dog and pony" show that is a coroner's inquest, better training for officers and for all firearm carriers (whether you open carry or have a CCW) you can learn from this.
RIP Erik! My thoughts and prayers go out to your friends and family!
Kind of sad the Scott family is hiding all their witnesses for a civil case. Seems like they are more interested in a big settlement than trying to uncover the truth about the shooting.
After watching the inquest for the past 3 days it's painfully obvious that Mr.Scott made some really bad judgment calls leading up to his death. The whole point of a CCW is not so much to hide your weapon from a would be attacker as it is to keep from instilling fear in the public. His biggest mistake was loosing his temper. Cooler heads will always prevail. That being said, I understand how a high pressure situation that calls for a split second reaction could lead to someone being shot 7 times...by a citizen. I would expect more restraint from a law enforcement officer who is trained to expect the worst from even the most simple traffic stop (never let your guard down). I can assure you that if you shoot an armed intruder in your home twice in the chest and then two other family members shoot the same person five times in the back, you'll be facing more than a fact finding inquest.
hey dipstick;
I know a lot of people don't believe the "facts" but one that keeps me laughing every time i see it is the Morphine "LETHAL RANGE" chart. Take a look at it and think hard about it since it is one of the clear, scientific FACTS in this case. He was dead before he was shot. What moron put that chart together base on what set of crappy "facts" to produce the range.
Tbark;
Good Point I was thinking the same thing myself. Even if I unloaded on the intruder once and then pumped the 10 guage and let him have the second one, I would probably have more stress on me than Mosher has on him.....
The system is flawed and needs to be changed and THERE IS NO ACCEPTABLE explanations you can give me that would justify the statement that MOSHER has pulled his weapon the equivalent of EVERY THIRD SHIFT HE IS ON....... That scares the poop out of me.
Dipstick;
Why I think the chart is so funny is not that I think that it affects the case in one way or another, but that the woman the presented it makes over $200k of our tax dollars..... Take a good look at what that money buys.... Think about words like Range and Standard Deviation.
Two points: 1) Those of you assailing the girlfriend for not attending are WAAAY off base. She just saw her boyfriend blown away while he was standing right next to her, and now she's expected to relive the trauma under examination by by a D.A., in a rigged setting when WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME WILL BE??? Knock off the presumptions and character assassinations of her. If she were my daughter, I, for one, would tell her not to subject herself to this farcical circus.
Besides, her "no-show" status is a red herring you guys are trotting out. We HAVE her testimony, by way of police recording. And that leads into point 2) Namely, the girlfriend, then the witness from Sweden, AND THE 911 RECORDING OF OFFICER MOSHER, HIMSELF, all confirm that Scott was ordered to remove his gun.
Then, when Scott did so, he was promptly shot to death. Thems the facts. No amount of excuse-making or diversionary, irrelevant, red-herrings ("the girlfriend didn't show," "Scott was on morphine") changes it. The cops literally "jumped the gun."
This is the second time around with Mosher, too. He needs to be reviewed, and possibly taken off the street and put behind a desk. Though unlike some of you above, I allow that Mosher would get his due process, before such a decision might be handed down. Scott, meanwhile, was unnecessarily and summarily executed.
Kaliscanner,
"I'm wondering if anybody is gonna sit down and discuss what they could have done differently."
You'd think so. But for some time we've heard "talk" from Metro that they're going to review their procedures for situations like this; so far I haven't heard anything announced, other than "talk" about "talking." Meanwhile, these kind of police shootings keep rolling in, in this valley. This year alone, how many have we had? Four??
"Scott held his hands in the shape of a gun and pointed them at Lopez's head, saying that if someone came in and held a gun to his head that he would take care of it, Lopez said."
Crazy gun people and NRA is nothing but trouble. They should have retesting, drug tests, and backgrounds done every year for people with registered guns. This is crazy.
DTJ:
Nobody ever told Scott to get his gun. Think about that for a second. Wouldn't it be the stupidest thing to as of any suspect? He did that on his own while the officer was telling him to get on the ground. Even his girlfriend knew he should not have reached for his gun AFTER his hands were up. A direct quote from her testimony:
"The officers told Scott to get on the ground, she said. Scott put his hands above his head, tried to tell the officer he was going to disarm and then slowly moved his right hand down to the gun, Sterner said."
When an armed person with raised hands who is known to have a gun slowly reaches for the gun that is a threat.
From the testimony it is apparent that Erik Scott was voluntarily leaving Costco and this is well documented by several witnesses including the Supervisor and his girl friend, also the supervisor and other employees have testified to the effect that Erik Scott other than being erratic under influence by unknown drugs, was not doing anything illegal inside the store.The store supervisor infact pointed him to the police officer as the suspect. So by all accounts this man did not pose any imminent threat to the officers or the public. With this scenario, he should have been followed to his car and confronted at the car and he should have been told that he was under arrest for suspicion of being under the influence of drugs while carrying CCW. Instead he was put into a corner where he was forced to react and was never given a chance for a peacefull arrest. This was not a crisis management but a crisis escalation with the wrong mindset and wrong approach.
So now we hear that it wasn't a holstered pistol, it was a "gun rug" which fully encapsulated the gun to the point that it was not even visible.
How did the cop know that Scott wasn't going for id, or even creds of some sort?
The old man testifying right now says he thought Scott was trying to hand the gun to the cop.
What if Scott was trying to hand a badge to the cop?
This guy is a former class III license holder. He knows about guns and is making the DA look like a buffoon.
FLOYD: Being on the drugs he was on, and carrying a gun IS ILLEGAL. He was wrong and illegal before he even entered costco.
Redmage:
"Nobody ever told Scott to get his gun."
This is incorrect. And this lies at the crux of the matter. Not only have several witnesses testified to hearing Mosher order Scott to "drop it (the weapon)," but though Mosher denied it, himself, the 911 tapes clearly recorded him doing so.
He was told to "drop it" after disregarding orders to keep his hands up. Some of you like to twist the facts to suit your agenda. What do you not understand about the words "hands up"..He was NEVER told "drop it" until after he disobeid a DIRECT order by police to keep his hands up and went for his gun.
@DTJ: I'm sorry but the term "drop it" does not mean reach in your holster and pull out your gun. I'm guessing "drop it" was said AFTER Scott ignored the commands to get down and started lowering his hand toward his gun.
Based on the girlfriends testimony Scott exited Costco, then put his hands above his head when confronted by officers (good move). The officers told him to get on the ground. He ignored that command and instead lowered his hands toward the gun he had (bad move). Even his girlfriend know him reaching for his gun was stupid. Then again she wasn't on any drugs.
How is that so hard to understand? Are you a product of the Vegas school system?
Nothing should have been done differently. I repeat nothing should have been done differently.
For those who say Costco is in the wrong, what if Costco would've let this guy stay in the store knowing he had a gun and shot people? Would they to be blamed for that too? Or did they do thing by asking the guy to leave and when he refused they call the police. What is wrong with that scenario?
The police told Erik Scott to get on the ground SEVERAL TIMES! What further training is needed? Yell louder? Wait for him to aim and shoot before firing back? Wait to make sure a gun is out of a holster when someone reaches for it before reacting?
The problem is everyone that states there needs to be additional training has yet to offer what that training should be. You know why? Because they cant think of what actually went wrong. Just because someone is shot doesn't mean anything went wrong as this inquest will prove.
I laugh at everyone that starts pointing the finger at the cops in these shootings. I laughed when the ice cream lady shoot was found good because she actually held a knife to her kids throats. I am laughing that the truth is coming out about this one.
Here are some more videos to show how fast a person can draw and shoot a gun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqaiJV1gI...
Redmange,
"How is that so hard to understand? Are you a product of the Vegas school system?"
What is your problem??? I didn't attack you, even when you were the one who was wrong on the facts. And now you're just making stuff up. To wit, "I'm guessing 'drop it' was said AFTER Scott ignored the commands to get down."
WRONG! You have the chronological order BACKWARDS.
(From yesterday's LV Sun) "The following is heard in the 911 call: 'Put your hands where I can see them now. Drop it! Get on the ground! Get on the ground!'
'He refused to comply with those commands, to show his hands, or to get on the ground,' Mosher testified."
Look, I'm hardly saying that Scott was any angel, or that he wasn't acting like a weirdo. But the facts are, that Officer Mosher gave him conflicting commands, in rapid fire succession. One of those commands was to "drop it" -- which clearly meant 'to drop the gun,' and Scott was doing so, WITH THE GUN HOLSTERED. And for that, he was shot to death.
Again, Scott was no angel. And I'm not saying (or thinking) that Mosher intentionally gave out conflicting commands -- hey, he's human. But Mosher blew it there, shot a man who was dropping it while it was holstered the whole time, and doing so because he was commanded to.
Looks like Tom and lvkindaguy understand all the evidence.
I love when people state idiotic things. "What if he was reaching for ID". LOL. Well, he was being told to get down, not being told to reach for ID. His hands were in the air and he thought nobody would perceive reaching for a gun as a real threat? Yikes, some of you people lack any common sense. Scott probably would have known how stupid his actions were had he not ingested so many drugs.
Now I wonder this: how many times do you think Scott drove while high on these meds? Thank God he didn't kill any of us or our loved ones. And no, I am not glad he got killed. This whole thing was a horrible tragedy.
"Looks like Tom and lvkindaguy understand all the evidence."
Yeah, they MISunderstand it just as you do.
You're embarrassing yourselves, boys. In the words of Officer Mosher, why don't you just "drop it?" (But be careful, he might shoot you while your're trying.)
i hope all u cop haters change your perspective the day you need them to protect u or someone in your family. it is sad that Erik Scott had 2 die, but his own actions led 2 his death. Even his own girlfriends testimony says he reached for his gun! what do you think a cop is supposed 2 do in that split second? he is to protect himself and everyone else shopping at Costco. he was given a command by a uniformed officer.
cops are trained 2 shoot when the person makes a move toward his gun. period. and not in the leg or just to injure, but to kill. if the level of threat requires a cop 2 pull his gun and shoot, it is 2 kill. sad it had 2 turn out this way but he controlled his own destiny. if he has a cwp he knows u don't reach 4 ur gun! the girlfriend is a POS for not bothering 2 show .her testimony can't help him becuz she knows deep down his actions led to his demise. his parents want 2 blame the cops, but I think
k they r finding out a few things about their sweet innocent boy. they need 2 just realize it wasn't everyone elses fault, their son had issues. as a parent I know that might b hard 2 do but it's best at this point.
The conversation is slowly beginning to devolve into personal attacks. Typical when someone is struggling to prove their point.
Fact: Erik Scott complied with Mosher's instructions. He put his hands up. He told the cop he had a gun. He was told to drop it. He attempted to comply and in the process of doing so was shot to death.
Two witnesses in a row testify that the weapon Scott was holding at the time he was shot wasn't even accessible for fire, as it was fully enclosed in a "gun rug."
The DA's office is attempting to make people believe that Scott could have somehow pulled the trigger through the fabric of either the gun rug or the holster shown in this article. Grasping at straws to make the cops look good, nothing more.
The whole thing reminds me of the bank robbery scene in "Raising Arizona":
Gale: All right, ya hayseeds, it's a stick-up. Everybody freeze. Everybody down on the ground.
Feisty Hayseed: Well, which is it, young feller? You want I should freeze or get down on the ground? Mean to say, if'n I freeze, I can't rightly drop. And if'n I drop, I'm a-gonna be in motion. You see...
LVMP 1066,
Good points all.
And to think, we can conclude so even though we're only hearing one side of the story. Can only imagine what else is out there which we're not hearing about, because the attorney for Scott family isn't allowed to put on witnesses, cross examine, or introduce evidence.
Oshikuru,
Good one! (And great movie, too. Had forgotten about that!)
Has anyone ever read the book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell? There's an interesting story in it about a shooting in the Bronx that happened several years ago.
Two officers gunned down a young man that they swore had a gun pointed at them. The man was killed. No gun was found on or around the body--he didn't have one.
I do wonder if this was a similar situation--the officers were in a high-stress situation where their rapid cognition might have failed them.
Sorry lvmp1066, we now get a picture and it most certainly isn't a gun rug. It's a holster, and the weapon can most certainly be fired from that holster.
And he was not shot for "complying with commands", he was shot for disregarding both his military and NV CCW training which both covered explicitly that you do not move you hand towards you weapon under ANY circumstance when stopped by law enforcement. If an officer wants you disarmed, you wait with hands in the air or lying on the ground with arms out and allow an officer to remove your weapon.
(Obviously many making comments on here have never taken the course required to obtain a Nevada CCW permit)
Actually DTJ, all Goodman had to do to get his witnesses and evidence included was provide a list to the DA. He chose not to. (which tells you that his case is probably all hot air)
wendor:
Who to believe?
A guy with federal class III license experience says its a gun rug. Says he can see that the thing is zippered and says its a light blue or green color.
Random "ccw holder guy" says its a holstered gun, of which he can see Scott holding the frame.
Unfortunately "random ccw holder guy" doesn't back up what is said on the 911 call, as he emphatically says the cops didn't dell Scott to drop it, yet the 911 tape clearly demonstrates otherwise.
So now its a game of who do you believe?
There are far too many conflicting stories, including "coke bottle glasses lady" testifying right now. She thinks Scott pointed the gun at full arms length at the cops, yet "paul blart," "random ccw guy," "federal class III guy" and everyone else refute.
So again, who to believe.
Who to believe. All you have are witnesses. Oh yeah, and the 20-30 witnesses that the Scott family attorney refused to provide.
You can't have it both ways. You want people to testify to get to the bottom of how this event transpired yet you fail to provide any witnesses to back up your story
Tellling.
I have no respect for people who are nasty, down right rude to others. Belligerent jerks...alcohol or not. Erik Scott leaves a lot to be desired. Sad he had to die, but this is NOT a pillar of the community.
Open and shut case. I find it hard to believe that every single witness is lying about what happened that day. Scott, under the influence made fatal mistakes. The whole thing is and was a recipe for disaster. Had Scott complied with all the commands from Costco employees to the Officers he would still be around today. I just dont understand why the Scott supporters cant admit that he is accountable for alot of this happening. It seems that the Officers acted well within their deadly force policy. I guess the issue for the Scott supporters is to change the deadly force policy. The only witness that may refute any testimony by the other accounts heard wasnt even in court and this attorney grandstanding everday acting like he was there and he cant even bring ONE witness to the table is getting old and sickening. We live in gun society and as long as we do cops will be gunned down by citizens and citizens will be gunned down by cops.
Jose, I have that same holster. You can fire it from that holster very easily. I think the point you may be missing is that he disobeyed commands, they knew he was a green beret and armed. To most cops that means he was better trained to kill people than most cops are. Like I said before this is an open and shut case. The facts known to the officer at the time and Scotts actions will equal a justified homicide.
Mosher will kill again because he is killing himself. Doesn't Metro have a weight policy? Mosher, listen to me, You are least 200lbs over weight,. That means YOU are destroying your own body with all that fat. Fat can cause heart diease, high blood pressure, diabetes and alot of other illnesses. Just because you chose to eat 6 hamburgers and bags of french fries at one sitting, doesn't give you the right to take someone else out. PS your changing stories don't help you either! Get off the police force and get to some fat farm, then you can stop your lies and stop killing other people.
Jose,
Doesn't matter if the gun was in a holster or not, it can still be fired.
"Did he reach for the gun and maybe Mr Scott was going to give it to the officer?"
Again, doesn't matter. Erik knew, as part of his NV CCW training, that you should *NOT* do any such thing. By doing so he made himself a threat and got himself shot.
Ross Goodman has said he won't allow any of his witnesses to testify in a venue where he can't cross-examine the witnesses. Hence, we won't hear both sides at the inquest, but will have to wait until the federal civil rights hearing.
This has been a dog an pony show. We've heard that Erik Scott had a very high level of pain killers in his system. But the DA didn't mention the doctor's report that stated Scott may not have had the necessary enzymes in his liver to break down painkillers and would have needed very high levels of pain killers to get the same effect that an average patient would get from a regular dose. We've got a Costco employee saying that Scott's eyes looked bloodshot. But we also know that the Costco employee took a headshot picture of Scott that day. The picture would show conclusively whether Scott's eyes were bloodshot or not, but we haven't seen it.
Metro and the DA are viewing the inquest as a way to clear the officers. They feared a potential backlash from the public, so they are trying to make the strongest case possible against Erik Scott. Hence, the selective introduction of evidence. Ross Goodman is viewing the inquest as laying the groundwork for a federal civil rights case, so he is filing motions to show there is no mechanism for filing motions, speaking up in the inquest room knowing the judge will tell him he can't speak, holding back witnesses, etc.
I suspect we'll learn more AFTER the inquest than we'll learn during the inquest.
It's very sad that people simply don't want to accept the fact that Erik Scott was acting in a belligerent, condescending, drug induced manner and that the entire episode was all within his control
#1 he broke the law by carrying under the influence
#2 he stated he is a green beret when he is not
#3 belligerent, jerk wad attitude toward store employees
#4 failed to leave store when told guns were not allowed on premises (nasty too)
#5 tearing open merchandise
#6 not obeying simple command to raise his hands. Once he defied that command, all bets are off. He sealed his fate by reaching for his gun when not instructed to. Any CCW holder knows the protocol for disarming in police presence...well at least I thought they did. Erik Scott got himself killed. His drug induced haze did not help him. Case closed. Justifiable. The family can take it up in Civil court where if they proceed to hide their witnesses it should be another lock stock barrel judgement. They have no case. Metro should not settle. No reason to. Erik Scott, and only Erik Scott was the catalyst for this tragic event. Mr. Mosher should be recommended for a commendation.
It is certain by now that he did not follow various commands. But, the big question is WHY he was confronted at the front of the store, when they could have easily followed him to the parking lot..after all he did not come out pointing his gun or gun in his hand or any threatning gesture that would indicate he was going to harm someone. Looks like he was aware that he had caused a lot of commotion and even admitted to a cashier that he was drunk and according to the testimony of his girl friend he was going to put the gun in the car and come back. This shows his willingness to comply with the gun policy at Costco (albeit he did not leave the next second after he was told to.) I donot read anything in the testimony to the effect he was acting irrationaly outside the store. A prudent and experienced officer would have handled this situation differntly. Yes,the Jury will call this shooting justified but that is beside the point.
@lvmp1066: Good point. Also, Mosher gave Scott the command to "Drop It" before giving the command to "Get on the Ground" according to the 911 tapes. If Scott's gun was in his hand at the time Mosher gave the command to "Drop It", Mosher would never have had the time to say "Get on the Ground" twice before shooting Scott.
You would have thought the final command Scott received before getting shoot, would have been "Drop It". Scott may very well have been trying to disarm after hearing "Drop It", reached for his weapon to comply and then got shot.
We've heard nothing about what training Metro officers receive for dealing with suspects with weapons on their person but not in their hand, so we don't know whether Mosher applied his training or not.
For example, does Metro teach its' officers to approach a suspect from behind and tap him on the shoulder? If Metro teaches its' officer to disarm someone that way, then Mosher followed his training.
Funny, if the goal of the inquest is to determine whether or not the officers' actions were justified, perhaps it would be helpful for the panel to know how officers are SUPPOSED to act in this type of situation.
The stories about Scott's prescription drug use may be juicy, but it really doesn't give any insight into whether the officers acted appropriately.
And the conflicting stories among the Costco employees are just funny.
Witness #1: "Scott was acting erratically because he was mumbling".
Witness #2: "I thought he was acting erratically because he looked like he was on drugs" Did your hear Scott mumbling? "No, he wasn't mumbling, but he had a red mark on his chest indicating he might have been on drugs."
Witness #3: "I heard Scott tell his GF he was drunk". Coroner's report: no alcohol in system.
Witness #4: Did you think Scott was possibly shoplifting? "No, I didn't think he was shoplifting"
Nervous DA: May I approach the bench and show the witness that in fact, he said earlier he thought Scott was shoplifting? After speaking with teh DA, Witness: "Oh yes, come to think of it, I did think Scott might have been shoplifting..."
Perhaps the safer public Costco policy would be to allow firearms instead of attempting to confront those exercising their 2nd amendment rights?
: {
At this point it really doesn't matter if this shooting was justified or not. We already know what the finding will be ahead of time.
The public has seen that the inquest process is nothing but a dog and pony show whose only purpose is to tell the public the cops did their job.
Well, we, the public, don't trust it anymore!
Get rid of this reverse kangaroo court and replace it with a proper review board. Don't try to dress it up in pseudo-legal trappings in an attempt to think it has the integrity and authority of a real court proceeding.
All this has accomplished is to reduce the public's trust even further, even if the inquest is correct!
@TomD1228: No worries, I'm sure we're going to hear from ALL the witnesses. But it won't be at the inquest, it will probably be at a federal civil rights trial.
The inquest is an entertaining, but one-sided affair. The officers will get off. Frankly, based on the evidence the DA has presented thus far, along with Goodman's decision to treat the inquest like a pre-season football game and hold back witnesses until the real trial, I'd probably vote to let the officers go back to work, too.
There are too many inconsistencies and they won't be addressed at an inquest. In my mind, the two most important pieces of evidence, the videotape and the girlfriend's first-hand testimony weren't provided and won't be provided.
I would be interested in knowing why Mosher left his job at a Massachusetts Prison? It could well be relevant to this inquest?
Have these so called witnesses been deposed? Have they given their statements to police? All this time is going to pass before this civil trial starts and all these witnesses will have good recollections of what happened?
For good or bad, they had their chance to speak, put it on the record now. They chose not to.
If you want to talk about inconsistencies, wait until the defense attorney finds contradictory statements from Mr. Goodmans "witnesses"
Team Scott is in trouble. Big trouble. They made this big media campaign and when it comes time to put up...they disappear. I never heard Mr. Goodman say one word to the effect that he would not turn over witnesses to testify until today.
SummerlinCC
When are you going to admitt that you never had a clue and take your 'dog and pony' and go home?
Whatever your agenda is it's getting pretty obvious that it isn't your interest in learning the truth!
The gun was still in the hostler. The 2 Costco's employees testimony yesterday that he drew the gun out and pointed at the officers is just crock.
It just appears he was reaching for the gun to disarm, but the trigger happy, poorly rained jumpy cops in this town are taught to shoot first and ask questions later. For them gun is the answer to all problems, unwarranted killings are bound to continue. No surprise that many law abiding citizens fear cops as much as they do criminals.
why can't this be posted in the opposite format with the most recent post being added at the bottom? its harder to read this way.
If I were Erik Scott's girlfriend, I would disappear . She sent a audio tape. If I were threatened by Metro, knowing they would kill me too, I wouldn't want them to get their hands on me, put me in jail, then claim I hanged myself with a sheet. That is exactly what these thugs do. Just a band of murderers, no different then what happens in the Middle East to women.
I work as a maint tech and at times i have tools and knifes on me that i use in my job and i will tell you this I am smart enough to let any officer that i come in contact with know that i have a weapon on me, even a small razor knife, and i reach with my opposite hand and show it to the officer keeping my hand on that side clearly visible. I'm sorry but it comes all down to upbringing I was taught to respect the police and to not give them any excuse to feel threatened by me PERIOD.
When i get pulled over, or in a vehicle that gets pulled over, I make sure that the officer can see my hands at all times. If i am asked for my id i let the officer know that i am reaching for it. Mr. Scott should have known that and with the amounts of drugs in his system he should have known better than to be carrying one weapon let alone two. Was metro right in shooting, yes, more than one person has stated that Eric Scott was acting strange and more than one person has said that he was irritated and not acting like a normal human being.
I say come on do you really know what the officers has felt, has anybody dealt with the nightmare that the officer is having. Until you have been in the officers shoes please don't condemn the man.
As far as I can tell if Erik would have complied we would be discussing something else and the family would not be sitting at an inquest. Number one or two suing LVMPD for wrongful death which is to come later. Guess who will pay.... Again, I can only sympathize with the family, I hope and pray I never have to indure their pain as a parent.
To Wendor (Charles Gladu),
You're not being sensible.
If one is: A) surrounded by police officers, and B) the cop squared off in front of you, pointing a gun at you at point blank range, yells at you to "drop it," you DROP IT.
That ridiculousness you assert, "if an officer wants you disarmed, you wait with hands in the air or lying on the ground with arms out and allow an officer to remove your weapon" is silly on the face of it. Everybody knows the police always command people to "put down your weapon!" (In this case, "drop it!") They never say, "Keep your weapon where it is; we're going to come up to you and take it off your person." And please don't give us that stuff about Scott's supposed "training." I repeat, if a police officer commands you to "drop it," you damn well better drop it. Everybody and his grandmother knows that.
As for "all Goodman had to do to get his witnesses and evidence included..." that is FALSE. Attorneys representing aggrieved families at these inquests have zero rights and absolutely zero power to compel any inclusion of any witnesses or evidence. It is at the sole discretion of the presiding judge, or the D.A. (I forgot which). Such requests by victim's family attorneys routinely have witness and evidence requests denied. This isn't on Goodman for not playing the part of the 'loyal oppostion'; this lies squarely at the feet of this biased, farce of a system.
The fact that you make this incorrect claim about this rigged system, combined with the inherent foolishness of your above claims about concealed weapon permit / military training, makes me wonder if these "training" assertions of yours are also a bunch of blarney.
In any event, with a cop pointing a gun at me, I'm surrendering the gun. So would ever other citizen, whether they are out of it from morphine, or sober.
He ALSO threatened a store manager directly, pointing a finger at his head, mimicking a gun. I think that in and of itself warranted calling the cops. This guy's family is spouting nonsense to everyone who will listen about what a great guy their son was. Can you say DENIAL? I also agree that they will probably file a civil suit -- they gotta pay Ro$$ Goodman somehow, right? They do NOT have a leg to stand on, though. The cops did their job perfectly and saved the day. No telling what that crackhead would have done if given the chance...It would be nice if they used their media time to apologize for Erik's actions and set up a fund to help recovering drug addicts. Now THAT'S the story I want to read.
Seems we need a lesson on disarming as it relates to the Costco incident. If your gun is in your waistband as Erik's was...and confronted by police, YOU DO NOT TAKE OUT THE GUN. It's very simple. The police want your hands nowhere near the gun. The first statement will be hands up, open palms. They might ask you to turn around so they can see the gun on your waist. They may ask you to lie on your stomach, hands out. Under no terms do they want you touching, handling the gun.
Once again, here it is. Erik disobeyed or disregarded an order to put his hands up. He then went to grab for his gun when NOT instructed to. He was told repeatedly "don't grab the gun"...he ignored that instruction as well. He then grabbed his gun and was shot. The cop has no idea of his intent. Beyond that, Erik was so doped up he himself probably had no clue what he was doing. The cop had no choice but to shoot. He has no idea of Erik's intentions.
It's amazing how people simply cannot comprehend the evidence.
There really wasn't anything that was surprising today but the fact that even the Costco employees could not come to a consensus on who saw or heard what. I found the Costco manager's testimony regarding the video to be very vague. On cross examination in an actual trial he would not be able to get away with some of the responses that he provided today. I am completely convinced that Coscto wants to do everything in its power to make this case go away. Had they fired any of the security employees for rendering a 911 call, which was later found to be inaccuate based on the testimony we have heard thus far, they would give the impression of liability. Therefore, they keep the employees on the payroll until all of this is over.
In cases where you have many witnesses that provide a wide variety of renditions of an event, like you have seen thus far, you have to rely on whatever objective evidence you do have as a baseline, and then build up some factual knowledge from there. Thus we have the 911 call which had the actual shooting on it. Its all we have becuase there is no video.
So what we do know is that several of the witnesses have testified to seeing anything from a gun, to a "gun rug," to a holster, to "something black," to simply saying, "I'm not sure." We have heard witnesses testify that they thought the gun had never left his side before officer Mosher fired, to the gun being in front of Erik's chest, to it being pointed at the officer. Each witness's testimony appeared different from the others. There was one witness today who appeared to be somewhere around the same proximity as the Demo lady testifying yesterday, who also appeared to be somewhere around the same vicinity as the Loss Prevention Supervisor. Each provided a different story of what they had heard being commanded by officers. Now the one witness who testified today who said he had a concealed weapons license, who appeared to be the most articulate at face value, stated that Erik should have just got down on the ground and followed orders. He himself having been in such a situation before, used his past experience to apply this to what he feels Erik should have done. I don't disagree with him. However, and this is key, you heard that very same witness state on record that he in fact did hear multiple commands. The DA did not even ask him to clarify this. Why? Becuase multiple commands can be heard on the 911 call. It's no longer a point of contention. contd......
......continued
Now is issuing multiple commands in 7-8 seconds (not the 30-45 seconds that you heard the Villarreal witness state), may not be criminal. But it sure does make for a precarious situation for everyone. What I can't understand for the life of me is why the officer did not identify himself right off the bat. You don't even hear it on the 911 call. I honestly believe that how officer Mosher handled the situation was a major factor in how the situation unfolded. I am going on the 911 recording and the amount of time that transpired. I know some of you might say, "that's easy for you to say," and "officers only have a split decision to react." Yes, but in this case there was no immediate threat and I strongly stand by my belief that there should have been a more structured, and well prepared protocol when approaching someone an officer believes to dangerous. You certainly don't want to come up behind him.
Now you can call me anti-police if you want, but you would be missing the point. I am searching for just what went wrong with this whole thing. I am also very concerned to hear in the dispatcher's recording, that was given to the media about a month and a half ago, officer Mosher saying he was waiting at the door as people were filing out, and that he was going to wait for more people to come out while he "figured out what to do." What this tells me is that there really wasn't a clear cut plan regarding "what to do." Now that's granted that the dispatcher's recording is genuine. I havn't hear otherwise though.
Now here is the fundamental issue at hand. This is the key to all of this. Were mutliple commands given to Erik? I heard one of the witnesses (older blonde lady) say, she heard commands coming from one officer who had a "long gun." I will assume a shotgun or an automatic rifle of some sort. Someone can correct me if I am wrong. Well who the heck was that officer? Now you also heard one witness say that there were two other officers firing from inside or at least flanking Mosher at the entrance. Where were they exactly? -and what were they yelling? Now if you figure there was a 7-8 second time lapse between the confrontation and when shots were fired (per the Judge's estimation from the 911 call recording yesterday), where exactly were the commands coming from. If they were coming from Mosher, and maybe the two other officers (per wtinesses, everything from "get down" to "drop the gun down" to "don't do it"), was someone yelling something from behind Erik, outside as well? Add the commotion that you hear on the 911 call and it's no wonder that you have heard so many versions of what was thought to be yelled by officers. continued.....
....continued
It kind of makes you wonder which command any one of us would have locked in on. So if your retort is: "as a concealed carrier he should have known not to touch his gun." My answer would be: we'll yes, but you are also told to obey the officer's commands. Again, though, which command? You can hear multiple commands on the 911 call. This is not a fabrication.
Now you are going to hear more witnesses testify, and they are again going to all be different in terms of what they believed they had heard concerning commands. One simple explanation is that it is becuase they all actually did hear different commands. Again, check the 911 call that was provided by the DA. It is on there and a lot of racket is going on.
Listen, I don't for a moment believe the jury is going to come back with a verdict that hasn't already been predicted. I have accepted that. But we as citizen's need to know everything that happended- what went wrong? At this point, to simply say that Erik pointed a gun at officers and that that is why he is dead has yet to be gleaned from all of the discrepant testimony. It just isn't there conclusively. Further, go back to the 911 call. In addition, there are manay, many more witnesses that are not going to be testifying in the Inquest, but rather the subsequent trials. I am confident that after many of them have been questioned and crossed, we are going to be able to ferret out who the most credible witnesses are to the incident, rather than rely simply on those who may have a stake in keeping a job, avoiding a lawsuit or may have been a part of Erik's past. Without a doubt, the only thing that really matters here (the Coroner's Inquest) is what happended in those 7-8 seconds. ses are to the incident, rather than rely simply on those who may have a stake in keeping a job, avoiding a lawsuit or may have been a part of Erik's past. Without a doubt, the only thing that really matters here (the Coroner's Inquest) is what happended in those 7-8 seconds.
"I was taught to respect the police and to not give them any excuse to feel threatened by me PERIOD." - el_diablo_loco
I was raised the same way. But today, I think it is time for the police to learn respect for us.
There is NO excuse for the police to have given us reason to fear or distrust them as they have done.
Halo
What went wrong was Erik Scott was drugged out
What went wrong is he didn't leave the store when told no weapons allowed
What went wrong was he was belligerent
What went wrong is he ignored a command of hands up, the first command. The other commands were in reaction to Eriks actions. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Everytime Erik made a move, the commands had to change. That is why you hear more commands. They are in direct reaction to each move Erik made.
You're looking at the wrong party as it relates to "what went wrong"
Erik Scott went wrong.
Halo,
Wow. A magnum opus of a post. (And that's coming from someone who makes pretty long posts, himself ;) But good points you make. Yes indeed, Officer Mosher gave out rapid fire, conflicting commands. That Erik Scott, who we already know was incapacitated by pain-killers, did not immediately react to the confusing commands, could hardly be unexpected.
But -- and people like TomD1228 can't seem to get this through their heads, so they just continue making up phony narratives -- the FACT remains that one of conflicting commands Officer Mosher clearly gave Scott was to "drop (his gun)." Mosher denied he said it, but the 911 tape proved that commanded just that. Wrap your mind around that fact, TomD1228. Your above post is FANTASY. ("It's very simple. The police want your hands nowhere near the gun. The first statement will be hands up, open palms... ...He then went to grab for his gun when NOT instructed to.)
Show me on the 911 tape where he was instructed "NOT" to, because the tape played yesterday during the inquest proves the exact opposite of your prevarications.
If all the armchair critics of Metro would look up "active shooter", you will see why Metro went right in without an official "game plan".
Columbine changed everything.
For those that say he wasn't an "active shooter", exactly how do you know his intent. He was erratic and stoned.
I do not pretend to know his intent. I just know how this situation could have escalated even more and then the Metro haters would wonder why Metro didn't protect the public better.
boftx,
"But today, I think it is time for the police to learn respect for us.
There is NO excuse for the police to have given us reason to fear or distrust them as they have done."
BRAVO. Well said.
Goodman has no case. Costco did not owe a duty to Scott once he became a trespasser. Besides they had no way of foreseeing that a mere call to 911 would lead to Scott getting gunned down. Yes, they settle for a nominal sum, but that's just to keep Goodman from continuing to spread his lies about this incident.
As for the case against the police, good luck countering all the witnesses the defense will parade to the stand that will say, as they have this week, that Scott appeared intoxicated and that he reached for his weapon. I really think that the Scott's may even have a hard time selling this case to a good attorney. Of course, the media whores of the profession will take anything to get their mug on TV.
As for the 20-30 witnesses, I say BS. If they really impartial witnesses, they would have come forward to the police. The fact that they are refusing to participate only shows that they have taken sides in this--their credibility is shot already. I bet most of them just responded to the billboard looking for their 15 minutes.
The only thing that can save the Scott's civil case is if that video shows up, but even Seagate could not get to it. The fact that a work order was placed to fix the drive two days before the incident kills any potential conspiracy theory.
Getalife,
Nonsense (as usual). Why don't YOU look up "active shooter?" Scott didn't shoot a soul. He never even unholstered his gun. But now, by your logic, cops can execute someone on the mere grounds that we "(don't) know his intent???"
You've taken Orwellian logic to new depths.
When an officer says drop it, it is because it is already in your hand. What do you people expect Mosher to do? Ask him nicely several times to please put down the firearm? Who on earth would tell someone to drop it when it was in their waistband? Get real. Erik Scott had the gun in his hand.
I wonder what some of you would do if you were told to go take care of a man who was acting erratically and had a gun. Then let him poiont that gun at you? Do you stop and ask him if its out of the holster? Do you ask him if he's having a bad day and if he needs a timeout?
And you idiots who state they should have identified themselves as police, did the uniform, badge,and gun belt, not give it away?
To me this one looks excusable, not really justified, as I don't think Erik was going to hurt anyone at Costco, but I don't believe it to be criminal.
The Cole case, to me was criminal, due to the shennanigans Yant pulled, and the fact that Cole didn't even posess a firearm.
I think Mosher needs to be put on desk duty. That "drop it" command, issued to Erik, while he was having trouble comprehending quickly due to drug use probably cost the guy his life. This is the second guy he's killed. Maybe the other one was justified- I don't know.
It would have been so much better an outcome for everyone if Erik had been arrested for posession of a firearm while intoxicated and a judge had ordered him into treatment. Might have saved his life.
At the rate he was going, his life wasn't going to be very long unless he got help. Sad. It's amazing how much you can hide from family and coworkers when dealing with addiction. I'll bet his family is in shock. I still think they'll get a big civil judgement, and I still think Metro has a culture problem that starts at the top.
The police officers did exactly what they should have done. The one thing that surprises me is that they actually waited until Erik Scott pointed the weapon at them before thay fired as one witness testified. They should have shot him at the instant he touched the weapon.
It looks like lowlife attorney of the year award goes to Ross Goodman. He's been whining about a fair inquest but where are all his bragged about contradictory witnesses? Nada.
Dumbest question of the year: "One of the written questions directed at Mosher asked if he felt any remorse for shooting and killing Erik Scott." Holy bejesus! Who is the dumb*** who wrote that question?
The biggest mouth in these Sun comments proclaiming how innocent Erik Scott was is nowhere to be seen now. Where is SummerlinCC?
Erik Scott had enough morphine in his blood to kill four normal men! He formed his hands into a shooting gesture and pointed at a Costco employee's head after it had been reported that he had a gun. Is that normal shopping behavior, SummerlinCC, where you come from?
LVLawDog,
I'll pass on your first few contentions, because they're merely your opinions. I disagree with them, but we each have our right to state our take on the matter.
What I want to address is your last point about the hard drive. I've heard that the best talent in America at accessing lost/erased/corrupted data is right here in Las Vegas. Why was it necessary to send the disc out of state? But more important, I think we've all heard many times that no data on hard drives can ever really be "lost." Once data is recorded, it's IN THERE; experts can always recover it. In fact, this is why consultants often advise the physical destruction of hard drives as the only way to realistically keep data from falling into the wrong hands. Likewise, compromising emails sent out can never truly be erased unless all hard drives they ever passed through are all physically destroyed. Many a "washed clean" hard drive has been subpoenaed, with all previous data successfully recovered.
Disclaimer: I do NOT have expertise on this technical issue. I am only reporting what I have heard. If someone qualified to speak with expertise can correct me, by all means, please do so.
In the meanwhile, the "loss/corruption" of the data remains fishy. We've seen this before (the tape from the parking structure where Jim Gibbons was accused of sexual assault.)
The_Next_Opinion,
I can't remember if you're one of the people who drive me crazy over on threads about Harry Reid, or one of the ones I agree with. But I certainly found your above post one of the best here. It was well-considered and without partiality.
The first paragraph of my previous post is not an opinion--its a legal conclusion. To prove wrongful death you must show to a probability that there was a duty owed to the deceased, that the duty was breached by the defendant, that the breach caused the death, and that the defendant could reasonably foresee at the time that the breach would have caused the death.
So what duty did Costco owe to Scott once he became a trespasser? How did Costco breach that duty by merely calling the cops? Why is Costco's breach responsible for Scott's death? How could Costco foresee that Scott would reach for his gun and get shot at?
This I would like to hear.
"Its a legal conclusion."
Says you. It's your opinion, and nothing more. Juries return verdicts against parties initially considered non-culpable, all the time. Just to play devil's advocate: *if* (big IF, here) Costco employees are found complicit in any efforts to "lose" the data, back-date orders to have the hard drive repaired, or otherwise engage in a coverup, the Scott family can essentially look forward to ownership of Costco. I am NOT alleging anything here. But just as questions about performance enhancing drugs were bound to surface once Jose Bautista hit his 50th home run, yesterday, so do legitimate questions about the lost video footage. And Costco knows darn well they will probably be defendants in a wrongful death lawsuit. Meritorious? That's not for me to say. But it is quite easy to envision Costco management circling the wagons early on, in panic of just such a lawsuit, and making bad decisions. Especially if Metro were pressuring them. Unlike others around here though, I'm not alleging a single thing; not jumping to a single conclusion. But again, it's worthwhile to throw out a "devil's advocate" viewpoint.
However, I don't care. The above is far more speculation than I'm usually up for. I'm bowing out for the night. Everyone else can keep fighting over all this.
How do I change my screen name to "Untrusted Commenter"? LOL.
If the Sun's editors are concerned that name calling will hurt someone's feelings why don't they just use the application that allows individuals to choose who they see and who they don't? The Nation magazine does that and it's a standard feature of newsnet newsgroups.
Anyway, I call someone a name to their face if they deserve it.
Meanwhile, I choose to continue to be distrustful of anyone who promises that they won't release my personal information. If you aren't going to release it why do you want it?
I just cannot believe what I have been reading on this post all week... insinuating that all the witnesses are liars, calling cops murderers and the worst is belittling people who work at Costco. What is wrong with all of you? No two people will perceive things the same way, from a staff meeting, to a night out with friends, to an argument between two people. This doesn't make them liars. ...and seriously, do you really think the cops involved set out to murder someone that day. What everyone is forgetting is that we live in a violent society where crime is rampant, the men and women who join the police force put their lives on the line every day to try and make our cities safer places to live. I'm pretty sure they don't do it because they want to get out of bed each day to shoot someone and I'm pretty sure they don't do it to get rich. ...and no, I'm not a cop. Lastly, are you all friggin snobs... I'm so sick of the comments putting down the Costco employees and insinuating they are morons. These people go to work every day, they have jobs, when so many are unemployed or just plain chose not to work. Stop belittling them.
It is horrible that Erik Scott died, but your all losing sight of the issues. He had massive amounts of drugs in his system, he was stumbling through the store, he was acting erratic enough to warrant a 911 call, and he had a gun and instead of just putting his hands up and leaving them up, he reached for his gun and apparently pointed or held it towards the cop in front of him. Did he have to be shot as many times as he was... probably not, but who really knows. No one knows for sure what Erik was going to do and no one knows for sure what they would have done if put in the police officers shoes. Years ago I tried to stop two thugs from stealing a friends car and a gun was pulled on me, my adrenaline kicked in in a split-second saving me from getting my head blown off. Once I got to safety I started shivering and went in to shock... it probably took me about 2 hours before I settled down, so I can imagine what happens with a police officer who goes in to a situation like that. Unfortunately, I don't think that the police had any other option at that moment in time.
@jsquare
Right on target. Here you have these young Costco employees just doing their job and faced with a belligerent, disrespectful, outright nasty individual and people come here to belittle the employees. Not one of these posters wants to call Erik Scotts behavior into question. Sad.
I just can't imagine these people think treating ANY employee in that manner is anywhere near normal conduct. Whichever side you are, I don't think you can dispute his bad behavior that day.
However you feel about the cops actions that day...there is no doubt his behavior and foul language directed at employees was disgusting. I would hope the family attorney would offer up some type of apology for his behavior. They can argue what transpired outside Costco until they are blue in the face. What he did inside the store was totally out of line
"I'm a fcuking green beret, go read the fcuking constitution"
Miming holding a gun pointing at an employees head.
Just for starters.
I've been watching the coroner's inquest since it started and I think the cops had no choice but to plug him full of holes. Erik Scott was a drugged out mess and a loose cannon. It will be a justified in the jury's eyes. I would be very surprised if it wasn't. Great reality t.v. I feel sorry for Erik's family, but drugs never have a happy ending.
@fulldeck. The list of interested parties at the Inquest is not just the Scott family. Costco, as well as the families of the officers are considered interested parties. All of them can submit written questions to the Judge. I would
omitted from above comment.
I would suggest that question came from one of the other interested parties.
Based on the 911 tape and the timing of the judge, Mosher gave 3 different commands in the space of 7 seconds. Mosher testified that the command he expected to be obeyed was get on the ground. He was never asked what would have happened if Erik Scott obeyed a different command? I think that we all know the answer to that question. Based on many posters here, I thought the proper procedure was to issue one command, and then work from there. The reason that I am saying Scott obeyed a different command is the fact that his weapon was recovered at the scene in a holster. If you look at the picture of the holstered weapon, you will see it has a metal belt clip right above where the trigger would be. I don't think that it would be possible to be able to fire the weapon in that holster. Why has there been no testimony about the second weapon. Mosher testified that he didn't pat down Scott after he was handcuffed after he was shot. Mosher did testify that the patdown was part of the standard procedure.
The other fact that has not been introduced in testimony or explored except for the taped interview of the girl friend is the fact that he was in an auto accident the day before. He was rear ended by another driver. The red mark described and used to say he was on drugs can be easily explained as a seatbelt mark from the auto accident. How many of us have been slightly out of it after an accident. That can also explain the "bloody knuckles", what ever that means. Were they dripping blood, or were they bloody like they had been scrapped raw? Cross examination would have clarifed that.
In a free land, only the cops can make it up as they go along, apparently.
Accepting this as justice is downright scary.
If this constitutes what you conceive as liberty and justice for all, I suggest a lobotomy.
[By Tanker1975 , Sept. 25, 2010, 6:20 a.m.]
Tanker1975: Based on the 911 tape and the timing of the judge, Mosher gave 3 different commands in the space of 7 seconds. Mosher testified that the command he expected to be obeyed was get on the ground. He was never asked what would have happened if Erik Scott obeyed a different command? I think that we all know the answer to that question. Based on many posters here, I thought the proper procedure was to issue one command, and then work from there.
<<<"In the background of a call to 911 played for the jury, Mosher can be heard yelling, "Put your hands where I can see them now. Drop it! Get on the ground! Get on the ground!"
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep...
Is there anything in those commands that even remotely suggests that someone should pull a handgun from their waistband and point it at a police officer? If you think there is then someone should check the morphine level in your blood.>>>
Tanker1975: The reason that I am saying Scott obeyed a different command is the fact that his weapon was recovered at the scene in a holster.
<<<What does a gun in a holster have to do with whether or not Erik Scott obeyed police commands? Nothing.>>>
Tanker1975: If you look at the picture of the holstered weapon, you will see it has a metal belt clip right above where the trigger would be. I don't think that it would be possible to be able to fire the weapon in that holster.
<<<It isn't a metal clip. It's quite obviously a plastic clip. It is also quite obvious that the handgun can be fired while in the holster. It is additionally quite obvious that when someone points that at you it's impossible to distiguish between the part that's a gun and the part that's a holster.
Rather than floating phony arguments about what Erik Scott could and could not have done why don't you try explaining what he did do. He pointed a handgun at a police officer in direct contradiction to what the police officer ordered him to do.>>>
Tanker1975: Why has there been no testimony about the second weapon. Mosher testified that he didn't pat down Scott after he was handcuffed after he was shot. Mosher did testify that the patdown was part of the standard procedure.
<<<The second weapon is irrelevant. He didn't point that one at a police officer.>>>
@fulldeck. The list of interested parties at the Inquest is not just the Scott family. Costco, as well as the families of the officers are considered interested parties. All of them can submit written questions to the Judge.
I would suggest that question came from one of the other interested parties.
By Tanker1975 , Sept. 25, 2010, 6:13 a.m.
```````````````````````````
The question about whether Officer Mosher felt remorseful? Nonsense.
Another choice question submitted: Do you believe in the Second Amendment?
These are questions from parties with a preset agenda who have no interest in the facts.
"-- the FACT remains that one of conflicting commands Officer Mosher clearly gave Scott was to "drop (his gun)." Mosher denied he said it, but the 911 tape proved that commanded just that. Wrap your mind around that fact, TomD1228. Your above post is FANTASY. ("It's very simple. The police want your hands nowhere near the gun. The first statement will be hands up, open palms... ...He then went to grab for his gun when NOT instructed to.)
Show me on the 911 tape where he was instructed "NOT" to, because the tape played yesterday during the inquest proves the exact opposite of your prevarications."
By DTJ , Sept. 24, 2010, 9:05 p.m.
``````````````````````````````
This is ridiculous spin.
These were Officer Mosher's commands: "In the background of a call to 911 played for the jury, Mosher can be heard yelling, "Put your hands where I can see them now. Drop it! Get on the ground! Get on the ground!"
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep...
Mosher is ordering him to drop it after Erik Scott ignores the command to put his hands where they can be seen ( obvious conclusion of first command: he was reaching under his shirt.) Rather than comply with the first command Erik Scott then pulled the weapon from his waistband and POINTED IT AT THE POLICE OFFICER.
I think the most disturbing part about the shooting that I have read was the fact that none of the wounds were immediately fatal.
How long was it before medical was brought in? 20 minutes or more? He bled out on the ground and no help was given. Maybe he could have lived if medical care had been given on time.
That's a painful death my friends. Whatever you think about the shooting, whatever you think about Erik, I doubt you would subject a fellow human-being to a painful death on a city street for just being an intoxicated jerk. We live in a city full of intoxicated jerks.
I'm just guessing, but my thought is that Ross Goodman is probably a lot smarter than I, and he's going after them in civil court for negligence "after-the-fact". If I spotted it, he spotted it in a nano-second.
Justified in shooting? Maybe. Justified in letting him bleed out on the ground for more than a few minutes? Probably not.
Ok, so if I have this correct, Mosher is telling him to drop something (the handgun), which has been verballyt recorded by 911. I am not the brightest person in the world, but, wouldn't that mean he would have to grab at it, or have it in his hands already to use the word "drop?" Example; you have an object, let's say a cell phone, holstered/secured on your belt, and your orders are to "drop it" and "get on the ground". One would have to assume that you would be forced to reach for your object, or cell phone in this case, to unsecure, or unfasten it with your hands, so that you would even be able to drop it. So for attempting to obey orders that are confusing to say the least, you get shot 5 times???
Also, have the 3 officers been drug tested? I may or may not know an employee with ***** that has been constantly suspended for excessive use of force, and cycles anabolic steroids. Still employed there. Think about it, if something happens at work to you, what's the first thing that happens. Bingo! Drug test! Work at Wal-Mart, and use Marijuana legally, and get hurt at work? Correct again! Drug test! Flip burgers and get burned....wow! Drug test!!! Shoot someone in the line of duty....wait a tick..no drug test? Oh, wait, no, there was. The man that got shot by the cops (who were not drug tested to my knowledge) don't get drug tested, but the dead man does. If that is such a big part of the trial, why on god's beautiful green earth are the cops not getting tested?
Am I missing something here...besides the security tapes?
@Johnny
The first statement from Mosher was "hands up". He did not comply. He then reached for and grabbed his gun. Then police then yell "drop it"..
What is so difficult to understand? He ignored the first order. After that police are yelling at him IN REACTION TO ERIK's ACTIONS.
You people keep saying they were yelling conflicting commands. The commands changed because Erik did not comply and reached for his gun. He was NEVER asked to grab for his gun.
Again, I don't see how you can "miss" something
Scott was so high that he probably didn't realize what he was doing. Either that or this is a case of suicide by cop.
This case is not worthy of a civil lawsuit. The evidence shows that the police did their job as trained for and that Scott was not legally entitled to carry a concealed weapon.
For TomD.
The story seems to deviate depending on which testimony we listen to apparently. Please post where you got this from, because there is a lot of information circulating.
From Las Vegas Sun, Mr. Scott's Girlfriend;
Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent listens as a recorded interview with Erik Scott's girlfriend, Samantha Sterner, is played during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Friday, September 24, 2010.
"He immediately draws his weapon, immediately, without hesitation," Sterner said in the recording.
The officers told Scott to get on the ground, she said. Scott put his hands above his head, tried to tell the officer he was going to disarm and then slowly moved his right hand down to the gun, Sterner said.
Sterner said she kept screaming at the officer: "'Do not shoot, he's a concealed weapons holder, he's a military officer, do not shoot.'"
"I said it a million times," she said.
She said the officer shot Scott once, then Scott started to fall back before the officer shot him twice more. She said she didn't see any other officers fire.
According to this testimony, Scott's hands were above his head. Probably should not have reached for weapon, with all do respect though, reaching to disarm is not pointing, or shooting. If you are reaching for the afforementioned cell phone, I understand it does not mean you are, or not GOING to use it, but, you not using it, you are reaching for it right? Unless Scott was some sort of trick shooter, there is no way in hell he can get that firearm out quick enough to beat Mosher, or anyone else. Mosher already had his firearm pointed directly at Scott, with the slack likely taken off of his trigger, in a "ready" position. Scott did not. His weapon, or weapons, were properly holstered.
Additionally, was there ever any credible testimony given that Scott pointed an unholstered firearm at anyone, with intent to use it? Maybe I missed that as well, if I did, my apologies.
Also, I am still missing the drug testing, and the security tapes, maybe we could get some light shed on that as well please?
Either way, this is tragic. There is no winner here. Metro, Scotts, citezens, anyone. Very sad and unfortunate.
DTJ, I agree with you that the normal rationa l response to the command "drop it" is to drop it....IF YOU ARE HOLDING IT.
It is not a rational response to the command "drop it" to then go and pick "it" up just so that you can then drop it.
So Erik's action would only be rational if he already had the gun in his hand. If he did then he should have "dropped it" immediately instead of extending his arm towards the officer.
Sorry, but there's no way to spin it where Erik is "complying" with any of the commands given.
Sorry for typo above, meant citizens.
All I can offer is that Erik was NEVER supposed to have the gun in his hands. He was never instructed to do that. He was never instructed to take out the gun.
His CCW training and military training is crystal clear. You do not reach for your gun in the presence of police unless instructed to do so.
I still don't understand why people feel he was supposed to take his gun out and drop it. What you simply don't understand is that you do NOT do that under ANY circumstance when confronted by police.
For Johnny
You don't "tell" the officer what you are going to do. The officer tells you what you are supposed to do. Understand? Big difference. You don't say a word. You listen and heed commands. Gun ownership 101.
"If told to drop it because the cop processed me telling him I had a gun I would have told him "MY GUN IS STILL IN MY HOLSTER" while my hands stayed up instead of reaching for the gun. Let the officer approach me and remove the weapon."
That is non-compliance and would have gotten you shot by the police for being non-compliant.
"That is non-compliance and would have gotten you shot by the police for being non-compliant."
Sorry Buddy, but no it wouldn't. Point to a single case (either here in Vegas or elsewhere in the US) to back up that claim.