Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Will Nelson testifies during a coroner’s inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
By Kyle B. Hansen (contact) 
, Cara McCoy
Published Saturday, Sept. 25, 2010 | 8:35 a.m.
Updated Saturday, Sept. 25, 2010 | 5:35 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
- Shoppers recount police shooting outside Costco (9-24-2010)
- Day 3 blog: Witnesses back officers’ decision to shoot Erik Scott (9-24-2010)
- 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)
5:35 p.m.
Andrew Muller, a Costco salesman, was helping to evacuate people from the store when he encountered a woman who turned out to be Scott’s girlfriend.
He said most people were cooperating with the evacuation, but this woman was more upset and asked if it was a joke.
Eventually she started to leave and he continued moving through the store, he said.
When he got outside the store, he saw the woman talking to a police officer with Scott by her side, Muller said. The woman was agitated, he said.
The officer then told Scott at least twice to get on the ground, but he didn't, and reached for his sides instead, Muller testified.
Muller said he was watching the officer and not Scott when the officer fired his gun.
Muller said he then dropped to the ground and began crawling around a corner to get out of the line of fire.
The inquest is adjourned for the day. Proceedings are set to resume at 10 a.m. Monday.
5:16 p.m.
Costco cashier Denis Sulc also saw parts of the shooting from behind a pillar outside the store.
He heard a police officer giving commands to someone to get down.
Sulc said he was behind a pillar when he heard two shots fired. He looked out and saw Scott on his knees, reaching for something at his side.
Then a woman near him fell out of a wheelchair, so he went to help her.
In his initial statement to police, Sulc wrote that he saw Scott run out of the store and reach for a "sidearm" when he was shot, but on the stand, Sulc said he couldn't recall if Scott was just reaching for his side or reaching for a weapon.
5:02 p.m.
Steve Albright was also shopping at Costco with his wife and two children when they were told to evacuate.
Albright saw someone point Scott out to a police officer, who then said “police” to Scott. Scott turned to face the officer and the officer said, “Get down, get down.”
He said Scott's right hand reached toward his back-right pocket.
"Muscle memory tells me what that means," he said, referencing the motion Scott made. Albright has a concealed weapon permit and said he has drawn a gun thousands of times.
Scott reached toward his pocket deliberately; "It was definitely an intentional, smooth move," he said.
There was something in Scott’s hands, but he didn’t wait to see what it was, Albright said. He said he turned to get his family and get away before hearing shots fired.
"I didn't see him aiming a gun at anyone specifically,” he said, but he heard someone yell "gun" so he and his family ran back inside the store.
“When police have their guns pointed at you, you don’t reach and pull out anything whatsoever,” he said.
In response to an interested party question as to whether Scott was a threat, Albright said it wasn't up to him to decide what the police thought, but it felt like enough of a threat to him that he was leaving with his 2-year-old and 1-year-old child.
4:39 p.m.
The husband of the previous witness, who Coroner Mike Murphy also said couldn't be identified because of his wife's ties to law enforcement, testified that he saw Scott holding a pistol by the handle, ready to shoot.
He said the officer clearly yelled instructions to Scott.
“I never heard the command 'put it down,' I clearly heard 'get on the ground' three times,” he said.
He said Scott held the gun in his hand, which was down at his side. He also saw the officer pointing his gun directly at Scott.
The man said he then moved behind a pillar with his wife so he wouldn't be in the line of fire. He heard one shot, then three more.
After a few moments, he looked around the pillar and saw Scott lying on the ground, already handcuffed.
The witness identified the gun shown in a photograph as the one Scott held.
4:20 p.m.
The next witness was a woman who works in a sensitive law enforcement position who couldn't be photographed or named in the news media, Coroner Mike Murphy said.
The woman testified that she was at the store shopping with her husband when they were told to evacuate.
As they were leaving, she saw a police officer with his gun drawn, but pointing toward the ground, she said.
While they waited outside the store, she heard an officer yelling at someone to get on the ground.
She said she could see the back of Scott, but only the left half of him because of a wall that was blocking her view.
She did have a clear view of the officer who ordered Scott down, then shot him. Another officer then approached and shot as well, she said.
Her husband told her the man had a gun, but she couldn't see it, she said.
After the shooting, officers brought out crime scene tape and told everyone to go home, so they did, she said.
4:05 p.m.
John Cooper testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
Costco customer John Cooper said he didn’t see police when he first left the store, but later saw an officer with a firearm in his hands.
Then he noticed Erik Scott facing the officer.
“He was not in a defensive manner,” Cooper said. “He was just standing there, almost in a relaxed position initially.”
Cooper said Scott appeared to be having a conversation with the officers, but he didn't know what anyone said.
Scott raised his hand to his waist, but he didn't see a gun, Cooper said. Cooper then turned to leave the area, heard someone yell that there was a gun and instantly heard gunshots.
After Scott was shot, Cooper said he turned back and saw a woman waving a paper and yelling, but he doesn't know what she was saying, he said.
He also saw an officer with his knee on Scott’s back restraining his hands, he said.
Cooper said he was concerned that no one was helping Scott after he was shot, and he felt guilty for not doing so himself.
3:40 p.m.
Evelyn Eckels testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
Another Costco shopper, Evelyn Eckels, testified that Scott looked angry “in the eyes.”
"He looked very angry, and he looked directly at the police," she said.
She said she suddenly noticed Scott was holding a gun in front of himself; “It looked like it was pointed to the officers.”
She covered her eyes with her hands and shouted, “Oh my God, he’s got a gun,” she said. “I was like a kid trying to hide, I guess.”
She then heard shots fired, she said, then heard a woman yell.
An interested party asked if Scott could have had a confused look instead of an angry one.
“No,” she said. “I feel as if he was just mad about the whole situation.”
She called police to give a statement after seeing media reports that some people claimed Scott didn't have a gun, because he did have a gun, she said.
3:07 p.m.
Judge Tony Abbatangelo dismissed a juror who is feeling ill. Four alternates were available, leaving three alternates left. Abbatangelo said he didn't want to delay the proceedings or get other jurors sick.
2:54 p.m.
Will Nelson testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
Will Nelson, the husband of the previous witness, also saw part of the shooting, but he was standing in a different direction and didn't see the whole thing, he said.
Nelson heard an officer yelling at someone to get down; when he looked over, all he saw was Scott’s hand, which was holding something brown and was extended in front of him.
He heard a gunshot, the object dropped out of Scott’s hand and Nelson recognized it as a holster.
Scott didn’t look like he was handing the holster to the officer -- it was more like he was displaying it to them -- but he wasn't holding it as if he was going to shoot it, Nelson said.
Scott didn’t seem to be a threat, but he also didn’t comply with the officer’s orders, Nelson said.
It would have been better for the officers to confront Scott in the parking lot rather than near the store entrance where there were more people around, Nelson said.
2:35 p.m.
Eileen Nelson testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010. Nelson was describing how after Scott was shot, "he was stumbling back, with his hands up, empty," she said, with her elbows bent and her palms up, demonstrating what she saw.
Pahrump resident Eileen Nelson was just about to check out at Costco when she was told to evacuate.
While walking out of the store, she noticed Scott and his girlfriend talking. They seemed calm, walking like everyone else, she said.
While Nelson was waiting outside, she saw officers with their guns drawn, ordering someone to get down on the ground.
She saw Scott raise his right hand toward the officer with something in it, she said.
An officer then shot Scott, and the item dropped out of his hand. It was then that she saw it was a gun holster, she said.
After Scott was shot, "he was stumbling back, with his hands up, empty," she said, with her elbows bent and her palms up, demonstrating what she saw.
Her voice cracked. "His hands were empty" when he was shot by the other officers, she said.
After Scott fell, Nelson noticed a cell phone on the ground, but the phone is not what fell out of Scott’s hand, she said. Scott was holding a holster, not a cell phone, when he was shot, she said.
Nelson said she saw the whole scene unfold. She said she watched, after Scott fell to the ground, as he became motionless.
"I could see his left eye, open and glassy," she said with a small sob. "He took his last breath, and then he didn't move anymore."
She also said she saw Scott’s girlfriend trying to stop one of the officers, but he pushed her back.
After the shooting, Nelson stood up and said she saw the whole thing and asked what to do. An officer told her to get in her car and go home, which she did.
2:02 p.m.
Back from lunch, another Costco shopper, Pahrump resident Eileen Nelson, is testifying.
12:49 p.m.
Costco shopper Dain Szafranski demonstrates how he saw Erik Scott jump back make a quick movement towards his waistband during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
Another witness says Erik Scott looked combative, was talking to police officers and made a shooting stance before he was shot.
Dain Szafranski was at Costco with his mother and 2-year-old son when they saw officers outside the store with their guns drawn.
He heard one officer command Scott to “get on the ground” three times; the instructions were very loud and clear, he said.
Szafranski said Scott was standing with his arms to his side, raised between his waist and his shoulders, and was talking, but Szafranski couldn't hear what he was saying.
Scott looked combative, like he was mad and arguing with the officers, when he suddenly “snapped,” moving his leg back to take a shooting stance and quickly moving his arm to his waist as if to draw a gun, Szafranski said.
“It looked like two people were going to have a gun fight,” he said.
Szafranski, who was holding his son, turned to run away and immediately heard gunshots, he said.
But he didn't see Scott with a gun or see officers shoot because he turned to run, he said.
After getting his mother and son a safe distance away, he returned to help others and noticed a gun lying on the ground near Scott, he said.
The inquest has adjourned for an hour lunch break.
Interested parties have submitted more than 1,000 questions to witnesses in the 3 1/2 days of the inquest.
12:16 p.m.
Costco shopper Dr. Humberto Rodriguez Jr. testifies about the slow movement of Erik Scott during a coroner's inquest for Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
Humberto Rodriguez Jr. was just feet away from Metro Police officers before Scott was shot, but he says he doesn’t know why they fired.
“It didn’t make any sense to me,” he said. “It seems to me there was plenty of time for the police officers to tase this fellow rather than to shoot and kill him."
Rodriguez was with his wife and mother-in-law at Costco. He saw three officers outside the store.
One officer was shouting: “get down, get down, get on your knees, put the gun down,” Rodriguez said.
At first, he couldn't see who they were yelling at. The officer "kept insisting that someone put the gun down and get on their knees," he said.
He then saw Scott, a “man who was frozen in time,” like a deer in the headlights, he said.
He heard a woman say Scott was a military officer, had a concealed weapon permit and had a right to carry a gun, Rodriguez said.
He saw Scott with his hand at his waist, and at the same time heard two shots.
Scott began to convulse and struggle for breath, said Rodriguez, who is also a doctor.
He said he didn't understand the shooting because Scott didn't appear to be threatening; “I saw a man that was not crazy, who was not insane,” he said.
Rodriquez said he didn't see Scott with a gun.
11:32 a.m.
Costco shopper JoAnn Rodriguez testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
JoAnn Rodriguez was at Costco with her husband and her 93-year-old mother, who was in a wheelchair, when they were told to evacuate.
She was waiting outside the store when she heard yelling and saw police officers giving what she thought were instructions to people, so she went toward them.
She then noticed that other people were moving away, but saw Scott, “frozen,” near the officers.
Rodriguez saw an officer pull up and fire a weapon, which she thought was a Taser.
She looked back at Scott and saw him stumble and noticed a red spot in the middle of his chest, she said.
Scott then fell to his knees and was convulsing, then was shot again, Rodriguez said.
She noticed her mother’s wheelchair, but her mother was not in it.
Her mother had fallen out of her chair when she tried to duck after hearing someone yell “duck” or “get down.”
They were able to help her mother, who had cuts from the fall.
11:24 a.m.
The inquest proceedings have resumed. Judge Tony Abbatangelo referred to an incident that apparently occurred outside the courtroom during the break.
The details of the incident weren't mentioned.
Outside the presence of the jury, Abbatangelo said decorum needs to apply throughout the courthouse or he might have to close the courtroom.
"I don't want to go down that road," he said. "There are a lot of actions that could be misinterpeted, or tempers could flare."
10:34 a.m.
Costco shopper Robert Connolly uses a tissue box to describe the way Erik Scott presented his gun to a Metro officer during a coroner's inquest for Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
Robert Connolly, the husband of Rand, the previous witness, testified that Scott was handing the gun to the officer before he was shot.
Connolly said he saw an officer tap Scott on the shoulder and tell him to get down. He heard a woman tell police that the man had a permit.
Scott reached to his back, pulled out a gun in the holster, and pulled it to the front toward the officer, Connolly said.
But he was holding the handle of the gun and the side of the holster; “He didn’t point it at the officer,” he said.
The officer then shot Scott, who fell to his knees and was shot again, he said.
Connolly identified a photo of a gun in a holster shown to him as the one Scott was holding, but he said he didn't see it fall to the ground.
He didn't hear the officer tell Scott to hand him the gun, only to get down, Connolly said.
After Connolly's testimony the judge called a 10-minute break.
10:09 a.m.
Costco shopper Dolly Rand testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
Shopper Dolly Rand was also near the Costco entrance at the time of the shooting.
She saw a man point out Scott to a police officer, who told Scott to get on the ground, she said.
She heard a woman yelling hysterically, but she didn't hear Scott say anything, Rand said.
The officer took a step forward, pointed to the ground and again ordered Scott to the ground, she said.
Scott reached behind his back like he was pulling something out of his waistband, then he brought his hand forward, with something black in his hand, she said.
“It was going up straight towards the police officer,” Rand said.
The officer fired at Scott, then two other officers fired, she said.
Rand said she couldn't tell what Scott was holding, but after Scott was shot, the object fell to the ground and came toward her, she said.
She described it as a square leather object, saying she wasn't sure if it was a gun or a cell phone.
"I don't know if it was a gun or not," she said.
9:46 a.m.
Costco shopper Dr. Edward Fishman testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
Edward Fishman, who was also shopping at Costco the day of the shooting, testified that he heard a police officer order Scott to “drop it” -- not to get on the ground as other witnesses have testified.
Fishman was checking out of the store when he was told to leave his things and evacuate.
When he got outside, he saw a police officer with his gun drawn. He walked around a post, then came back and saw Scott at the entrance. He heard the officer tell Scott to “drop it,” even though he couldn’t see anything in Scott’s hands, he said.
He saw Scott reach toward his side and his shirt came up, then he was shot, Fishman said.
He didn't see Scott point anything at the officer or take an aggressive stance at the officer, he said. Fishman also said he didn't hear Scott say anything.
After he was shot, he saw Scott’s hands above his head before he fell to his knees and then fell face-down on the ground, Fishman said.
Fishman, a physician, said he was concerned that no one went to help Scott or check a pulse, but an officer did handcuff Scott after he was on the ground, he said.
He was so shocked and surprised that he was afraid to approach and offer assistance, he said.
He said he didn't see anything drop from Scott’s hands or anything laying on the ground near him.
Fishman said he gave a statement to police the day of the shooting and also gave a statement to a private investigator hired by the Scott family.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent asked if the investigator or anyone from the Scott family told Fishman about the inquest or told him to come testify.
Fishman said they did not, but he received a subpoena from the district attorney’s office to appear and testify.
Fishman was accompanied by two foreign exchange students, Lisa Holzgruber and Caroline Lagerholm, whose recorded descriptions of the event were played for the jury Friday.
9:14 a.m.
Costco customer Karen Passarelli-Krause wipes away a tear while testifying during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
Another Costco customer, Karen Passarelli-Krause, also testified that she saw Scott shot by police officers.
Passarelli-Krause was emotional on the stand and said the event had traumatized her; “I’ll never forget it,” she said.
While shopping, she was told to evacuate the store. When she got to the front entrance she saw Scott, who was four or five feet away, and a police officer, who was right next to her.
"I saw Scott's shirt fly up and the gun come out," she said.
"To me, it looked like it (the gun) was pointed at me,” she said. “I just kept staring, in disbelief that this was happening."
The officer then pulled his gun out and shot Scott, she said.
Passarelli-Krause said she ran back inside the store, pushing other people back and yelling that people were shooting.
She said she heard shouting, but isn’t sure what was being said. “All I was paying attention to was the guns,” she said.
A question from an interested party asked if Scott could have had a cell phone, not a gun in his hand.
“I wouldn’t be afraid of a cell phone, I thought it was a gun,” she said.
8:54 a.m.
Costco customer Wendy Wolkenstein testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
Wendy Wolkenstein, another Costco customer, testified that she saw a police officer and Scott outside the store when she was evacuated.
She saw the officer with his gun out, she said, and he was yelling at Scott, whose back was facing her, to get down on the ground.
"I didn't see Mr. Scott getting to the ground, or attempting to get to the ground, unfortunately," she said.
She herded her children behind a pillar when she saw Scott’s elbow move back toward his waist or pocket, she said.
She then heard gunshots: “I have never heard a gunshot before and I actually thought it was a Taser,” she said.
When she looked back briefly after the shots, she saw Scott with his hands in the air, possibly as a reaction from the shot, she said.
She then focused her attention back on her children, she said.
Members of Erik Scott's family, father Bill, mother Linda, and younger brother Kevin stand at the start of a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
Wolkenstein testified that she heard the officer yelling orders at Scott, but she didn't hear Scott say anything.
When interviewed by police, Wolkenstein said she hoped the shooting wasn't Scott's fault, but she doesn’t understand why he didn’t go to the ground.
“I just wish Erik would have gotten to the ground; it’s upsetting,” she said.
8:34 a.m.
Day Four of the coroner’s inquest into the shooting death of Erik Scott has begun at the Regional Justice Center.
Wendy Wolkenstein, another Costco customer who saw the shooting, is testifying.
The court didn't open an overflow room for the media and the public this morning as had been done during the other days of the inquest Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
One change mentioned this morning was that the inquest is expected to continue Monday. The judge earlier in the week had said that if extra time was needed, it would likely resume on Tuesday.
He said he didn't see anything drop from Scott's hands or anything laying on the ground near him.
*****
That's why police use 'drop weapons'.
Very Convenient!
Let me know what happens when someone with a finger on the trigger of a gun gets zapped by a taser...
Common sense try to use it please.
You shoulda Tased him Bro. Be more like Sheriff Joe. Yes, there is much training to be done as well as a mind set to adjust. No community is perfect but c'mon, shooting a high guy in Costco. Please, everyone involved with this tradegy, review how you could have done things differently. Pray for them all.
lvkindaguy:
When you are tased, the effect of electricity on the body forces your muscles into a state of extremely rapid contractions and relaxations, focused mainly on the major muscle groups. As this happens, the contradictory actions of contraction and relaxation essentially paralyze the body as the brain isn't capable of overriding the effects of the electrical impulses on the body.
The whole point of a taser is to incapacitate a subject. Trust me, when you get tased, you lose all control, and no, your finger wouldn't automatically contract and squeeze off a round if you were holding a gun.
And since Scott's gun was either in a holster or a gun rug, his finger wasn't on the trigger anyway. It's moot.
/been tased, bro.
//in the army for training, not on the strip.
In this senario there is no way an officer is going to be that close to a arm suspect in any situation. Connolly is only imagining what he saw. In all my training and watching videos of armed suspects, I have never seen an officer so close they could tap a armed suspect on the shoulder. Erik has two weapons, he was a danger to the public, high on pain killers, life was in a tail spin, and no way out. Suicide by cop. This is your typical senario for suicide by cop.
Where is the videotape? The Feds need to get involved before more people are killed!
lvmp 1066,
Watch all taser videos (including training ones) and let me know which ones show the person being tased with their fingers straight out.
Also, since you have been tased and presumably went though some type of training for it, you would know that the two prongs of the taser need to attach to the body or clothing to complete the process. If one does not connect then there is no effect. I say this because if a person has a gun on them and one of the prongs misses, that person still has full control of their body. Now add to that the fact the taser makes a loud pop (somewhat similar to a gunshot) and you have trouble.
What I am trying to say is if the police try to use a taser on a suspect with a gun and it does not work, that suspect could start firing rounds while the police now have to reach for a gun.
This DA is acting like a dick to the witness now. Totally unnecessary. Its about factfinding, right? Not trying to discredit someone who challenges the official party line.
The doctor seems credible. Much more so than the cop.
One of the last witnesses on Friday was Christopher Villareale. Christopher Villareale is a donor to David Roger's campaign. 2/26/2010 he donated $500.00. Look it up on Clark County Election Dept. The inquest is a complete farce.
lvkindaguy:
The taser's maximum effective range is about 15 feet, meaning that when the barbs are deployed, the spread pattern is small enough that both barbs can be expected to hit a target if aimed center mass up to that distance.
From all accounts, including the police statement, the contact officer was close enough to touch Scott, to no more than 6 feet away for the entire incident.
Plus, there were three officers. There was absolutely no reason for all three of them to deploy firearms. One of them could have easily deployed a taser first and completely eliminated the need to shoot Scott.
Are you guys kidding me? Are you really that conspiracy theory happy that you can't make simple deductions?
For you taser fanatics; if you come into a situation with a report of a gun on a suspect you are going to enter with a gun and not a taser. When the suspect reaches for his gun, regardless of his intentions, do you really think the police should put their guns in their holsters and pull out a taser?
Just because someone says they didn't see a gun fall or in his hands doesn't mean they are saying there wasn't one. There have been enough witness testimony to make a few conclusions:
He had at least 1 gun on him
He did not follow police instructions
He pulled his arm back and reached in the area where one might keep a gun
His arm came forward with said object
Police never say hand me your weapon. You go to the ground with hands out and they retrieve the weapon. There is almost no chance these guys will be held criminally responsible, but of course you guys will whine about that too.
I just wanted to know why the DA didn't point out that Chris Villareale--the witness that said he saw a gun and concluded that the shooting was justified--also happens to be a major contributor to the DA's re-election campaign?
I have read enough testimony to conclude that:
1) The Merchants of greed as usual cared for their wallet than his welfare. They knew or should have known that he had a CWP.
2) The Supervisor ignited and escatlated a common incident and he failed to contain the sitution. The evacuation was an overkill and his 911-call was interpreted as "gunman on rampage" as opposed to a drunken customer in a disruptive behavior who did nothing disruptive outside the Store.
3) Cole's was a blatant execuion because of a furtive move and Scott was a Brutally slained because he failed obey the commands. In Both cases the Court of Law came to the Person instead of the person being peacefully arrested and brought to the Court of Law.
4) This Inquest process is travesty of justice and insult to the Judicial process with no discovery or cross examination. This Inquest process has no place in a democracy or civilized society. There should be a Professional Screening Panel with one person from each Profession upto Twelve people who are better suited than a Jury.
SuperRevs:
How long have you been a cop?
Report of a man with a gun could mean anything.
911 calls clearly show that the police knew he hadn't drawn the gun, that he wasn't making moves to draw the gun, and that he wasn't threatening anyone.
The only info that the police had was that there was a guy with a concealed weapon.
In a state where both concealed and open carry are legal, I question whether police policy should be to approach reports of an armed yet nonthreatening person with guns drawn.
The potential for accidental discharge, poor assessment of the threat on the part of the police, or any number of other scenarios resulting in unwarranted police shooting is far too great.
And in case you wondered what an accidental police discharge looks like:
From right here in Vegas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDfNV9bJo...
And from a cop who believes he is the only one professional enough to carry a glock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1jurJzBv...
And now we have a wannabe cop testifying in support of the police.
The circus has received its third ring.
You can't have it both ways. You complain about the witnesses, yet the 20-30 witnesses that the family has have refused to testify.
@LVMP...
"In a state where both concealed and open carry are legal, I question whether police policy should be to approach reports of an armed yet nonthreatening person with guns drawn.
The potential for accidental discharge, poor assessment of the threat on the part of the police, or any number of other scenarios resulting in unwarranted police shooting is far too great."
Good points.
This episode was escalated so far beyond what was prudent and necessary, it is ridiculous.
I think most of the credible witnesses saw that too.
So far the witnesses supporting Metro's version are: 1.) Costco employees; 2.) A major donors to the DA's re-election campaign; and 3.) A guy that attended the police academy and is looking for a job in law enforcement that says he watched alot of movies where shooters acted like Erik Scott.
Those eyewitnesses supporting Scott's girlfriend's version of events are physicians, housewives, etc.
Hmm...tough to know who to believe....
I'm gonna have to agree with lvmp1066 , I've been watching this show for days since the start. Today I did notice a TONE in the DA's voice while questioning a witness. What was That about??? She seemed to be answering all his questions without confusion or needing clarification. Maybe he just wasnt liking the answers she was giving, though they sounded clear enough to me..
When there are reports of a man with a gun, the police should have their guns drawn. Do you really expect them to walk up to some guy acting erratically WITH a gun in his pocket with their hands at their side?
@ssinine.
The commands had to change because Mr. Scott ignored commands and proceeded to make a move for his gun.
This inquest is over. Justified. Let them take it up in Civil court where they will lose. By then years will have passed and this non sense of police misconduct will go away. Police did their job. It's sad this man lost his life, but he bears the responsibility of that thru his actions that day.
In an evacuation environment of noise and confusion created by Metro/Costco personnel a gun-drawn Metro officer makes contact with a purported armed suspect -- the suspect subsequently turns to face a muzzle drawn confrontational officer barking out commands -- stunned with immediate shock and disbelief. "whoa, whoa, whoa" the suspect is frozen attempting to assess what appears before him -- attempting to grasp a barrage of commands through the noise filled chaos the victim instinctively attempts to defuse the situation by offering his holster firearm to his aggressor(s) -- focusing upon the hands of the suspect the commanding officer erroneously misinterprets the suspect's actions of presenting his "holstered" firearm as a threat firing two quick shots into the torso of the suspect -- the wounded suspect turning to address his wounds immediately drops his still holstered firearm to the ground -- spinning and falling the now unarmed suspect's rear torso becomes turned towards his aggressors who continue to fail to accurately assess the presents of threat/danger and quickly fire an additional five shots into the rear torso of the suspect.
There was never any an "actual" deadly threat presented by the suspect, only a "perceived" threat initially and erroneously interpreted by the commanding officer and subsequently interpreted by fellow officers who along with the commanding officer continued to implement the use of lethal force in the absents actual and/or perceived threat/danger firing upon an unarmed, falling, wounded suspect's back torso region an additional five times.
With only an erroneously interpreted perception of threat present, as a juror, would you considered the implementation of lethal-force by law enforcement personnel justifiable, excusable or criminal?
: {
TomD...
Sounds like you have a dog in this fight.
gamg, you noticed that too? For anyone that thinks the thin blue line doesn't exist, you need to open your eyes.
I can't get over SummerlinCC's assertion that $500 is enough to make someone a "major contributor" to an election campaign.
By your same logic anyone who contributed to any of the DA's opponents (including Goodman) would obviously pay off witnesses and tamper with evidence to make the DA look bad.
As for you nonsense observation about "two groups of witnesses"...let's see which group is more credible. Group A - mostly Costco employees several of which knew in advance that Scott was a concern and were therefore keeping their eyes on him. or Group B - physicians, housewives, etc who had no idea why was going on, were not watching Scott and mostly looked over only AFTER shots were fired.
I'm gonna give credence to the testimony of the folks who were paying attention the whole time over the folks who happened to look over later on.
And do we need to go over yet again that "I didn't see such-and-such" is not equivalent to "I saw that such-and-such wasn't there" or "I say that such-and-such didn't happen". All "I didn't see" means is that the person didn't see - usually because they were looking somewhere else or not paying attention to that particular thing.
SummerlinCC,
Your making yourself look silly. No one considers a person that makes a $500 donation to a campaign a "Major Donor". You keep repeating it but that does not make it so.
I know that facts don't play into a good conspiracy but use a bit of common sense when posting in public.
Nope. Just understanding the facts. It's not rocket science.
Scott disregarded ALL commands. What's so hard to understand. Why make excuses?
Harley:
Anyone with half a brain does not take it upon himself to defuse a situation by disregarding direct police instructions. Are you kidding?
HE DISREGARDED a DIRECT order. You do not take it upon yourself when confronted by police to "disarm". The police have NO IDEA of your intentions. His miliary background and CCW training should have covered that.
And I love that lvmp1066 is still going on with this delusion about Tasers. If you were actually tased in training as you claim then I will guarantee that you saw that not 100% of those tased were incapacitated on the first attempt.
Now remember that if those folks had guns it only takes the first one that is unaffected (taser malfunction, miss, barb stuck in heavy clothing, barb falls out) and you are SHOT DEAD.
I doubt you would have the guts to routinely face armed suspects and go with your taser first every time - because it would be a VERY short career for you.
Funny [not really] how the 'cop haters redicule the testimony of any witness who doesn't support their hope to see Metro in a bad light!
Let's hope that , should a civil trial develope from this incident that we get to view it also as the 'cop haters' will surely give us another good show!
Perhaps SumerlinCC could get his[?] own unreality show afterwards!
I'd watch it a couple of times!
BeSafe
You will get yourself killed by police with that mentality. You do not make a decision to pull out your gun in front of police to "disarm". They will disarm you.
How difficult is it to understand that the police have no idea what your intentions are. Only you know that. Hence you do not decide yourself to disarm. The police will do that for you. You simply tell them you have a gun, put your hands where they can see them and then THEY will disarm you. Making the decision to disarm yourself in front of police when not instructed to can get you killed.
I can only hope that those who own or carry guns, they know that they do not disarm themselves.
Oh, and since Tom also brings up LV CCW training, and yesterday lvmp1066 said he doubts are claims about what the training covers are true.....Everyone who wants to should please rush down to ANY of the locations that offer an NV CCW class and enroll. A quick google search shows that tactical west is now even offering classes on-site at bass pro shops on Saturdays.
So lvmp - before you dispute my claims about what Erik's training covered - go actually take the course.
Sorry wendor,
In my experience, EVERYBODY in my platoon dropped like a stone when tased. This was a military unit, so most of us were built like Scott, and wearing similar clothing (t-shirt and ACU pants)
The only knowledge I have of anyone not being incapacitated by tasers are people who either didn't take both probes, people wearing unusually thick clothing (over1") or people wearing body armor with trauma plates.
I've heard anecdotal stories of people using certain drugs (in the story its usually PCP) being affected differently by tasers, but its anecdotal and I really don't know if I buy those stories.
Erik Scott was a prime candidate for a taser. Not seven hollow points.
Oh, and for everyone who doubts that a weapon can be fired from that holster - I'll be happy to demonstrate, but you'll have to pay the replacement cost for the holster.
Chuck, don't put words in my mouth. I never questioned what CCW training covers. I questioned whether Scott was complying with officer's instructions, which some of the witnesses suggest he was.
It's very obvious that the DA is leading witnesses that favor Metro and cross-examing witnesses that favor Scott, when this proceeding is supposed to be about neutral fact-finding. Anyone that can't see the difference in the DA's performance is blind.
Also, when real estate developers contribute money to local politicians, there is usually a reason why. Sorry if I come across as a pessimist.
My apologies lmvp, it was actually DTJ who was disputing what NV CCW training covers and who needs to run down and actually take the class himself.
But you answer puts you in the same boat. If Erik interpreted the instruction "drop it" to mean "put your hand on your weapon, remove it, and then drop it" then he completely disregarding his training.
This specific scenario (how to respond when confronted by an armed police officer) is covered very well. It is made quite clear that if you place your hand on your weapon the outcome will likely leave you dead or injured.
There's ample opportunity for everyone here to offer "opinions" and "comments" without ATTACKING anyone's particular stance; disagreeing is different than attacking. I think you could take either side in this and make a very valid argument, and most are doing just fine.
Can we keep it "civil"?
Aren't you one who suggests that Scott wasn't in his right mind through this incident?
Whether he was following CCW training "by the book" or not, his actions did not present an immediate and dire threat to the officers.
Hell, I've seen people on the street in diabetic emergencies who acted goofy and seemed drunk or high.
The point here is that the police jumped the gun. They are trained to evaluate the mental state of an individual, and they are supposed to keep in mind that their perception might not be reality, and that all people react differently under stress. Their job is to defuse situations, not escalate them unnecessarily.
That is why they are given LLO and trained in the use of force progression.
Scott presented no threat to anyone until he was facing the barrel of a gun.
@SuperRevs
"Are you guys kidding me? Are you really that conspiracy theory happy that you can't make simple deductions?"
It's important information. The jury should be informed of the relationship between Christopher Villareal and the D.A. This is the kind of information that would come up in cross examination.
Just like the jury in the Trevon Cole inquest should have known that Detective Yant had a history of lying about sting operations that never happened and evidence he never actually collected.
Was the metal piece on Mr. Scott's waistband shown in the earlier exhibit a holster waistband clip? If so, because of the orientation of the clip on the leather holster and trigger on the gun it looks as though the gun/holster that is being shown was held on his left flank. Costco employee Shai Lierley refers to a firearm on Mr. Scott's "waistband" ... what was Mr. Scott reaching for on his hip?
-Do we know if Mr. Scott was left handed?
-Do we know if Mr. Scott was carrying a cell phone?
-Do we know where on Mr. Scott's body the second gun was found by paramedics?
Why aren't the girlfriend and the witnesses for Mr. Scott's family testifying?
Just curious...anyone have any insight into these details?
Scott tells them he has a gun...ok, hes told to get on the ground ...and to drop the gun... he reaches for the gun to drop it, so what next...we know they say he was reaching for his gun so they shot him after telling him to drop the gun... the truth is coming out of this... did they set him up to shoot him. I see a set up so he could be shot it appears to me at this point. And still no evidence or testimony from anyone that says he was threating in any way to anyone, as he exited the building and the police had no reports of any crime or threats against anyone that would suggest the police should have approached Scott the way they did. Has he kidnapped anyone,,no! Had he threatened a store employee...no! Had he broke any laws...No! the police are assualting a US citizen with guns drawn for no justifiable reason except because of someone called them and made some vague complaints about an indiviual in a store with a holstered weapon.
And again, the DA is cross examining a witness who thinks the cops screwed the pooch.
What happened to this being "non-adversarial?"
It is perfectly clear that the DA here is attempting to shape the story to fit his narrative. This is incredibly troublesome.
This is a disgrace.
I have to go with the 2 docs and Pahrump on this.
Wow. I guess Mr. Nelson just gave us a bunch more reasons why we all shouldn't commit crime. No matter how honestly, cleanly, religiously etc. you live LATER in your life, your prior "record" can be displayed for all your neighbors to see. Message to those who have paid their debt to society: DON'T WITNESS ANY INCIDENTS EVER!
LVMP 1066,
How exactly did the police jump the gun? Should they have waited for Erik Scott to pull the entire gun out of the holster before they took action?
Yes the police went in there to take action. And your report was incorrect. The police went in with the knowledge that Scott was tearing open merchandise and when confronted by employees stated that he was a green beret and that he had a right to carry a gun. That is according to the radio transmissions not second hand testimony. Who in their right mind would go into that situation with an easy going attitude?
Your comments also show the lack of experience you have with confrontational situations. And if you want to post videos I will to. Here is a video of how fast a person can shoot from the holster. Please let me know if you would have time to transition from a taser to a firearm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OcjF3yax...
Your lack of experience in using a taser also shows. If you believe every time a taser is used it works, you have not seen enough tasers deployed.Why didn't the other officers have tasers ready? Tell you what let me know when you would go to a gun fight with a taser.
Again I ask you why you think it would be good to tase a guy with a gun?
There exists a new law enforcement technology, generically Cop Cam, which is a video/audio recording device worn on the head of police officers. Taser International, the same company that supplies PDs around the country with "taser guns," makes their own version called AXON. Cop Cam technology is now being tested and/or employed by several PDs across the US. This will certainly reduce the number of police shootings/killings and also misconduct complaints; it's exactly what LVMPD needs.
For more details, go to www.vegascopcam.info, then call/email the Sheriff, your Commissioner, and your State Reps and advocate that LVMPD adopt and employ Cop Cam technology now.
For those claiming that the witnesses are being cross examined and being treated poorly LOL!!!!
You all are idiots. Let me ask you this how many questions were they asked compared to Officer Mosh? Officer Mosh answered all the tough questions that went his way, but did any of you complain about that? Of course not.
These witnesses are being treated no different. That is why it is justice.
Oh and just because someone has a "Dr." in front of their name does not make them a more credible witness. Unless that is they attended a "how to be a godd witness 101" course in college.
Morphine is a potent opiate and clearly impaired Mr. Scott's judgment. It is also a clear violation of CCW requirements to be impaired by morphine and carrying a firearm.
Legally, this is known as "proximate cause..." The event or point at which a series of incidents begins, ultimately resulting in an event.
Tragic, absolutely. But had Mr. Scott chosen to leave his firearm at home OR had he not had extraordinarily high amounts of morphine and Xanax in his system on July 10, he probably would still be here today.
Why put the officers in a position to make a life and death decision? If you trust them, follow their commands. If you don't trust them, all the more reason not to place yourself in a position in which they have any cause to fire on you.
If I were Erik Scott's girlfriend, I wouldn't show up either. I don't want to be next on Metro's HIT LIST! Mobsters with a gun. The Mafia doesn't control this town anymore, the cops do, and they do the same hits the mob did. SOOOO... What's really different?
@lvkindaguy
The prosecutors keep asking leading questions. Questions similar to, "Mr. So-and-so, Erik Scott pulled a gun, pointed it at the officers, and intended to shoot the officers, isn't that right? Mr. So-and-so"
Also, when they find a witness they like they ask the witness to engage in speculation for which the witness has no real basis to speculate. When they find a witness they don't like they accuse the witness of engaging in speculation for which the witness has no real basis to speculate.
If cross-examination was allowed, if there was an opposing counsel then these types of questions would not be asked.
I don't quite understand why we have to go through this debate to begin with. We should ALL want a fair coroner's inquest process, and every coroner's inquest should contain more elements of a real criminal trial. It's just not American to have what basically amounts to a Kangaroo court for something as important as a police shooting. At the very least we should not allow the organization that did the killing to be the same organization to investigate the killing. It's a recipe for disaster. We don't live in Mayberry anymore and we deserve a big city inquest process.
Hey Fletch, Let me give you some rebuttal, if I have a CCW and have a problem with some rent a cop, I will speak up. I don't like stupid people making stupid comments. Listen up you cop, has anyone examined his body to see if he was injected with drugs, AFTER he was dead? Cops do that. Mobsters, one and ALL!
Alex2, your "rebuttal" makes no sense. Are you calling me a cop? I'm an educated, intelligent individual with a background in the legal field. I have no bias on either side. I don't like stupid people making stupid comments either.
The shoppers are understandably upset at what they witnessed, it's an emotional experience. The officers are acting from a completely different set of information and are responsible for the safety of all the shoppers, etc. in the immediate area.
Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, not through any fault of the individual, but because when things are happening quickly and in a highly emotionally charged situation it's hard for people to recall details. Almost every person will have a different recollection of what happened.
The coroner's inquest process is clearly one-sided and it would give the public some reassurance if it were more balanced. There's no disadvantage to making it fair since it's a fact finding process. People should not be so angry; questions and discussion should be welcomed.
The instructional video about the coroner's inquest proceedings states ". . .unlike a regular courtroom, the coroner's inquest is a non-adversarial, fact-finding process." Unbelievably INACCURATE in Las Vegas, and especially in the last two inquests, Mr. Cole's and now Mr. Scott's. The two DA's are horribly disrespectful to ANY witness who does not "go down the primrose path" that the DA directs them to, and the only reason that they did not crucify the elderly lady who announced that she had seen the whole thing is because she appeared ready to have a heart attack. Let's see, she was told "to go home!" but witnesses who were 45 feet away with obstructed views were actively recruited. This is a complete and unmitigated farce--disgusting.
The airing of the inquest is going to lead to either the substantial modification or ending of the inquest process entirely. The DA's conduct has been shocking and has really gone a long way to showing why the deceased's civil rights are violated in the supposedly "neutral" fact-finding inquest process.
If Clark County doesn't change the process, I would expect that a higher court will find the process unconstitutional and force the County to change it.
This very comment section PROVES what a TERRIBLE NEW FORMAT the Sun staff has chosen for its readers and posters. Take a look at the (relatively few) "trusted" comments on this very popular story; they're either in direct reference (and often rebuttal) to a previous, "un-trusted" commenter's words, hence they make no sense on the story page all alone, OR they're simplistic beyond discussion value, and are only worthy of story-page status because the "trusted" poster is naive enough to make their identity known to the world.
Seems to me that it's the ultimate Badge of Shame to post under the title of "Trusted Commenter"!
AP put this story out today:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep...
Clark commissioners: Change cop shooting reviews
I don't agree that it needs to be an adversarial setting, but something must be done.
How could the inquest process be changed so that it is still a fact-finding procedure and not a trial? Anyone have any ideas?
Have the witnesses give a verbal narrative of their account. When they have finished, allow the D.A. and an attorney for the family each to successively ask questions of the witness.
To streamline this process it may even be possible to have witness statements read or played, as the statements given immediately after the event are more likely to be the most accurate anyway, and then ask questions based upon these statements.
Sounds like cross-examination.
If it is to be a fact finding activity, then it should be a panel with representatives from the public and coroner's office. The DA should NOT be involved. Think of if as being ONLY a jury who asks whatever questions they deem needful to get at the truth. They are not trying to determine guilt, just a determination if a death was justified, excusable or criminal.
The procedure I am suggesting is actually a throwback to English trial procedures in some respects.
I actually think the whole process should be dispensed with and any cop involved in a death of a suspect should automatically be charged with manslaughter and have to go to trial.
But the law allows officers to use deadly force to protect themselves and others from deadly threats. How many officers would continue to be officers if they knew that doing their job could put them on trial? Thats a dumb idea to charge them all with manslaughter.
Every shopper who didn't hear "drop it" needs to have that audio tape played while they are on the stand and then asked if they heard "drop it," and then asked why they didn't hear "drop it." I know they did this with Mosher, but it really needs to be done with all the witnesses who have selective hearing here. Hope the jury sees thru that, but they probably won't.
I dont understand why Police "HAD" to approach Eric S. at the exit when:
1. He wasnt branding the firearm
2. He wasnt acting crazy
3. He was in proximity to people
4. He was licensed to carry.
If the firearm was concealed, why did the police have thier guns drawn?
Finally, I hope Metro is held accountable for killing as a form of conflict resolution. 5 shots to the back? Conveniently no video? Come on, something needs to change.
MSH1,
Why should cops be worried about a manslaughter charge if they need to kill in the line of duty? After all, in our system of justice a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Cops should know all about that.
Boftx: I'm guessing you support a manslaughter charge against any and all of the law enforcement officers who took out Johnny Lee Wickes at the federal courthouse earlier this year, even after he had killed a court security officer and injured a federal marshall. That about right?
What should change? Everyone has a lot of complaints but there are no real solutions. Turning it into a trial would not work. If officers are put on trial for using deadly force, which is a job requirement at times, then there would be no more cops. So, whats gonna make you all happy? Name a better solution....a real solution.
Also, a police shooting would not fit the charge of manslaughter in NRS. So come up with a better solution.
Does anybody know what happens to a citizen if they kill someone in self defense? Oh thats right they do NOTHING! There is no inquest or trial. They just simply are not charged. Our Police officers are held to higher standard then everyone else.
All of you that want a full murder trial, I hope that is what happens when you kill someone threatening your life. That's right pay the high lawyer fees and court costs for defending yourself.
Blame family and his girlfriend for letting him carry two guns while under the influence of precription painkillers.
I again ask anyone what leading questions are being asked of witnesses? Give me one example, just one? You can't because when a witness that seems in favor of Scott has to reveal that in fact he did reach for a gun, all of the sudden the DA asked the wrong question? Please! I have yet to hear one leading question.
Officer Mosh on the other hand had to answer hundreds of questions, more than any other witness. Did anyone complain about that?
If Scott had the gun in his hand before the verbal exchange with Curley started, then "drop it" should have been the ONLY command Curley gave. Since he gave other commands either Scott didn't touch the holser until told to "drop it" or Curley was just trying to inject confusion into a volatile situation or both.
This is horrific ! how many times did they shoot him ? I hope we hear from the other shooters, why all the bullits in the rear torso ? 4 people(including Scott) did not do anything right. The only justice will be in civil court. Metro needs to ship these boys outta town like good cowboys. Its sad to not want to be supportive of Metro but WTF were they not thinking about ? The crowd size ? good thing they all hit the target. Are they expert Marksman ? if so... since they felt safe to unload in the crowd could they possibly have maimed him ? 7 rounds in one man is more then a gunfight. Its a Slaughter... and that is wrong.
@lvkindaguy
"I again ask anyone what leading questions are being asked of witnesses? Give me one example, just one? You can't because when a witness that seems in favor of Scott has to reveal that in fact he did reach for a gun, all of the sudden the DA asked the wrong question? Please! I have yet to hear one leading question."
I've heard numerous "leading questions" by the DA over the past four days, which indicates to us you haven't paying attention -- if you'd like numerous examples I'll review the nearly 20 hours of data (my DVRs function properly) and list them but my service fees are $50 per example CASH -- how many will surfice?
: {
<i>Officer Mosh[er] on the other hand had to answer hundreds of questions, more than any other witness. Did anyone complain about that?</i>
The questions they did not ask him were as follows: why were you saying "get on the ground" to a man with a holster in his hand? Why did you not keep saying "drop it" until he dropped it? Didn't you realize that saying "drop it" and then changing the command before the gun was dropped was going to be highly confusing? Did you say "drop it" before he touched his holster and then switch commands before he had a chance to fully comply with the "drop it" command?
There now exists a new law enforcement technology, generically called Cop Cam, which is a video/audio recording device worn on the head of police officers. Taser International, the same company that supplies PDs around the country with "taser guns," makes their own version called AXON. Cop Cam technology is now being tested and/or employed by several PDs across the US. Cop Cam will certainly reduce the number of police shootings/killings and misconduct complaints, and will function as an unblinking eyewitness to any police event; it's exactly what LVMPD needs.
For more info about this revolutionary technology, go to www.vegascopcam.info, then call/email the Sheriff, your Commissioner, and your State Reps and advocate that LVMPD adopt and employ Cop Cam technology now.
And who's gonna pay for the cop cam?
@VegasCOPCAM
Cop cams would enhance public safety, court process efficiencies, while mitigating the liability of civil-suits, I'll second the cop cam motion.
A cop cam type device should be required standard apparel for all field law enforcement first responders, while the necessary funding required to purchase such devices could come from personnel reductions along with cost saving associated with court processing efficiencies as well as liability costs reductions resulting from the mitigation of civil suits.
FWIW: Mr. Cole, I noticed Metro's reply to you didn't indicate that Metro planned on making any commitment to the cop cam system -- that they were currently researching their options.
Perhaps public and political pressure can bump-up the priority?
A photo of the COP CAM device can be viewed at the following link:
http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/...
I've followed the Sun's blog reports, but have not viewed any of the tellecast since I'm out of town.
First, my heart goes out to everyone involved in this debacle. There are no winners, only people who's lives will be adversely changed.
Second, the witness testimony confirms what a lawyer friend of mine once told me, "Eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable."
Third, the jury should reach a verdict on EACH BULLET FIRED. From what I've read, the first bullet fired would probably be EXCUSABLE and possibly JUSTIFIED. But by the time you get to the round fired up the victim's butt, well ... that's just good police work I guess.
@lvkindaguy. Actually we want something that will allow cross examination of witnesses by attorneys for all interested parties. How about interested parties being able to call their own witnesses? How about interested parties being able to see the evidence and the witness statements before the Inquest. Oh yeah, I forgot, the cops may stop showing up and testifying if that happens. Then we do it with a subpoena or go without. They won't be able to tell their side. If you don't want to testify, you lose your right as an interested party. I hope everybody realizes that it the family members of the officers and Costco (?) are all interested parties and can ask written questions.
@MSH1. The model that NYC has seems to work pretty well. An independent agency that investigates all complaints against police ranging from OIS to accusations of verbal abuse. The have 160+ investigators. The agency also tracks the compliants on each officer and can identify officers who may have a problem with excessive force. Prevent problems before they happen. What a novel idea.
lvkindofguy: You truly must be watching a different telecast---"leading" does not even begin to describe the blatant, disgraceful bias that the two DA's have injected into this proceeding. They actually put words into several witnesses' mouths, and "reminded" them when they forgot to mention something that THEY wanted mentioned. I have had great respect for the district attorney's office in the past, but this is really beyond the pale!
If an outside agency investigated police shootings, what difference would it make. Really. The LAW states that officers are justified in using deadly force if they have reasonable fear of a present deadly threat. An independent investigation won't change that.
Erik Scott got himself killed. If he was grabbing his weapon in an attempt to disarm, he was wrong to do it. Even if the holster still covered the gun, that doesn't matter. You expect the officer to give a non-compliant gun carrier any slack? Scott's intentions are not an issue. His actions are at the heart of his death. What happened was his fault. Not Costco's or Metro's. The Scott family needs to come to grips with that no matter how many pleasant photos they post of Eric on their blog.
Havens22... you are a moron !! when you say:
He said he didn't see anything drop from Scott's hands or anything laying on the ground near him.
*****
That's why police use 'drop weapons'.
Very Convenient!
Are you suggesting the gun photographed as evidence was a "drop weapon" You must be right, right after the shooting the officer pulled out a "drop weapon" in front of a hundred people and dropped it on the ground.
BOFTX... If an intruder broke into your home and was standing over your bed about to drive an axe into your head and a police officer shot and killed him, saving you. I guess you think that officer should be cuffed up and hauled off to jail. Will you at least visit that officer on visiting day ?
Maybe Metro should do "job switch" with the County jail. Those jailers really know how to use the taser....along with many other non-lethal measures. Call it " Training Day."
@ skerlahdee
"Third, the jury should reach a verdict on EACH BULLET FIRED. From what I've read, the first bullet fired would probably be EXCUSABLE and possibly JUSTIFIED. But by the time you get to the round fired up the victim's butt, well ... that's just good police work I guess."
It will be interesting to hear how the officers unloading multiple doses of lethal force upon a wounded, falling, unarmed suspect's backside will attempt to justify what nonexistent threat they perceived which warranted their actions.
@ peaceperson
"lvkindofguy: You truly must be watching a different telecast---"leading" does not even begin to describe the blatant, disgraceful bias that the two DA's have injected into this proceeding. They actually put words into several witnesses' mouths, and "reminded" them when they forgot to mention something that THEY wanted mentioned. I have had great respect for the district attorney's office in the past, but this is really beyond the pale!"
FWIW:
Yes, the DA is "coaching" recollection from testifying witnesses with "leading" questions because the witnesses provided their original audio testimony and/or written statements immediately following the incident which is now over two months old -- people's memories fade details with time -- the audio testimonies initially provided to law enforcement were converted to written transcipt as an aid for the DA in asking questions -- apparently witnesses weren't provided copies of their original statements for review prior to this inquest -- hence, when the witnesses testimonies begin deviating from their original statements during the inquest the DA begins using questions which attempt to "lead" their testimony back into conforming with their original statements - for the record.
@ MSH1
"The LAW states that officers are justified in using deadly force if they have reasonable fear of a present deadly threat."
Care to explain how a wounded, falling, unarmed suspect presents "reasonable fear of a present deadly threat" to warrant being shoot an additional five times IN THE BACK?
BTW: If your standing on pavement and someone orders you to "GET ON THE GROUND" how do you do it when you're already there?
: {
who_really_knows,
As a matter of fact, yes I would.
I am not saying that all officer involved shootings are criminal, I believe that almost all of them are justified. But we, the public, no longer TRUST our police. That trust must be restored somehow.
The inquest system as it exists in Las Vegas does *nothing* to do that.
The officer cornered him and he was slain like a dog. Humane society treats dogs better than this officer did to a human being. I believe the witness-Humberto-whose description "Frozen in time" is the most apt description for a man wrongly confronted,given conflicting commands that bewilder a meal mortal let alone a person on drugs or alcohol. The officer according to his testimony was prepred for a "gunfight with a greenberet". His only thinking was how he was going to be fast with his hands. He had no intention or mindset to diffuse the situation or subdue and arrest a person. This man and the man who killed Cole are irrational homicidal maniacs who are a disgrace to humanity and these two should be the prime reason to abolish the Coroner Inquest and bring back order into a Judicial process. Cole and Scott were not saints but neither were they sinners to the extent their constitutional and civil rights deserved a day in Court-but they were never given a lifes chance.
I do not know the laws of carrying a CCW, nor do I know the procedure that an officer or officers are to follow when approaching a "suspect" that has been reported to have "E.D. or Excited Delirium" and "may have" a firearm.
What I do know is that Mr. Scott had to be pointed out to the officer(s), so exactly how erratic/excited was he acting that he actually had to be pointed out by the Costco Employee, and then tapped on the shoulder by an officer to gain his attention?
I can see the 1st shot possibly being justified (I personally don't agree that it is, however, I can see both sides here)... But 6 additional shots, and one in the buttock? Now that I am not sure about. The officer (unsure of his name, but boasted about wanted to serve his country after 09.11.2001) testified to "double tapping") I was under the impression that Sheriff Doug Gillespie stated "shoot, evaluate, shoot" Not "Double Tap" as it appears happened in this case? Again I could be wrong here, but I do know the Marines teach "Double Tap" as my family is full of Marines and some lifers.
I too had a run-in with Metro about 2 summers ago. My husband, myself, and 2 of our 6 children were in my brothers 5 passenger Saturn ION. We were assisting a friend with his vehicle, when a Metro officer (already on scene) ran our plates, then proceeded to draw down on the Saturn that we were all in due to a 10k Felony warrant that my brother had out unbeknown to any of us, including my brother, and his bondsman. Not only did 6 more metro officers appear, but the one that initially drew down did not seem to understand that my Hawaiian husband with a CDL could not possibly have been my Caucasian brother with a class "C" license, and this Motorcycle Metro Officer called for a Helicopter, as well as 6 additional Metro officers that also drew down on the vehicle that we were in!
I support metro, I have friends in metro, but am still astonished to this day that they drew down on a vehicle that had obviously NOT contained my Caucasian Brother, but rather my Hawaiian husband, myself and 2 of 6 of our children.
The checks and balances that laws are supposed to have in place, didn't seem to be in place the say Metro drew down on us, and it doesn't seem that they had any checks and balances in this situation either.
It is just my view, I could be wrong as I was not at Costco on July 10, 2010 and I am very glad I was not.
As far as the "Drug Testing" I can tell you that I have documentation showing a urine test contained 210,000 nano-grams of Amphetamine, yet the blood test had only 200 nano-grams... Faulty UA or Faulty Blood Test? My best is on Faulty Officer Work... again, just my opinion.
Godspeed to the Scott Family my prayers are with you!
1) According to the coroner, one of the rounds that killed Erik went up through his buttocks, through his bowels, and lodged in his chest. How did that happen? Why? Figure out the angles needed to get that kind of trajectory. Basically someone shot him up through his rear end. Was he standing, kneeling or laying down when this happened? Why? Is that standard procedure for the Las Vegas police department?
2) Erik was not a trigger happy or violent person. When a Rottweiler-Pit Bull (mixed with other breeds?) bit him earlier this year (2010), other than being upset, he showed truly great restraint in not shooting the dog. An average person would have, justifiably, killed that type of dog if it attacked them.
3) Being a law enforcement officer is a very difficult job and the officers had to make a split second decision. They may have been doing exactly as they were trained. But was the training correct? Was their response and procedures a recipe for disaster? I do mean to vilify them personally, but perhaps we should all take a step back and ask what lessons can be learned from this. Was there a better way to handle this? None of us are perfect and the quest for justice must also be tempered with mercy. In hindsight, neither Erik nor his guns were a threat to anyone. Disarming an honest man, in a humiliating and dangerous way, cost our society to lose the type of man that we cannot afford to lose. If the officers had personally known Erik they would never have pointed their weapons at him, but just given him a lecture and probably told him to "just go home". "If".
4) I personally do not plan on shopping at Costco, or going to Las Vegas, anytime in the foreseeable future. For any events I help plan or have input on, Las Vegas has moved to the back of the pack. As word of this spreads, I'm sure millions of Americans will make the same decision.
5) We all make mistakes. Part of recovery is asking for forgiveness. I believe Costco and the Las Vegas police department owe the Scott family and Erik's fiance an apology and restitution.
6) Is everyone telling the truth? Some of the testimony conflicts dramatically. That needs to be sorted out.
FWIW:
Per 911 call; Approximate time-frame of the sequence of events in SECONDS
0.0 -- 2.0 Command: "Put Your Hands Where I Can See Them NOW!"
2.0 -- 3.5 Command: "Get Down On The Ground"
3.5 -- 4.5 Command: "Drop it"
4.5 -- 5.5 Command: "Drop it!!!"
5.5 -- 6.5 BANG
6.5 -- 7.5 BANG
7.5 -- 8.5 BANG
8.5 -- 10.5 BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG
Summary:
- 4 total verbal commands in which 3 were different and 1 repeated in a ~5.5 seconds time-span.
- Commands were continuous and changing as fast as they could be spoken into a noisy/chaotic background.
- 7 shots fired within the following 5.0 seconds time-span.
Notes:
No STOP and/or FREEZE commands were issued to obtain initial control of the suspect prior to issuing multiple-differing commands within a ~5.5 second expected compliance time frame.
7-shots fired within a ~5.0 seconds time-span suggests adequate threat assessments weren't being performed between shots.
: {
Costco shopper Robert Connolly uses a tissue box to describe the way Erik Scott presented his gun to a Metro officer during a coroner's inquest for Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
*************************
Still would like to know what happened to that video machine.....
Funny how people end up getting 'tagged' to being on one 'side' or another immediately because of comments they've made. On the face, there's not much to say Scott got what he deserved. No apparent criminal activity, no evidence of such, just an accusation that he pointed a "gun" that many witnesses and even pictures presented show otherwise. At best, he "pointed" a holster. Mosher testified it was a gun, so even he is either wrong or lying. You figure out which.
Now, nobody knew who he was exactly when this happened. So, he has a CCW. Nobody says that was presented, to anyone. So it may as well not exist for this discussion. So he went to West Point. And? Must have been a "Green Beret", along with John Rambo I guess. Also, he never brandished his weapon even when confronted in the store. I see a lot of comments he was on some sort of rampage. Really? Why did he wait so long to pull his gun and start killing people? Even Shay said he wasnt threatening, just "acting weird". His 911 call paints an entirely different story. Go listen to it. He trumps up the situation, talking about a stabbing in Henderson, 6 "big guys" one of whom had a "big knife" who were apparently not welcome at Costco Summerlin, and how Scott was conducting himself in the store, not to mention all the people that Shay thinks are "weird" that come into the store. If I ever see him in person, I will call him a murderer to his face. Costco really should fire this guy for being disrespectful to customers.
Then you have the security guy, Lopez?, who testified that Scott made a gesture with his fingers to Lopez' head as if to explain why he carried saying he would "take care of" that situation. Could be interpreted either way, but he took it as a threat... and then does not call the police? He "assumed" that Shay was talking with police, but NEVER confirmed this. Wow, so some guy threatens to shoot you, you are told he has a gun, you're the paranoid type especially when it comes to guns, but you do nothing other than walk away to remove yourself from the situation? On that same note, apparently these customers who he was scaring off and such never called 911 either.
As far as the DA... if you do not think he's leading with questioning, are you listening? People that he has "never talked to" and he is testifying for them and requesting a yes or no response to his statement of what occurred. Sure, not leading AT ALL. He also got visibly angry when one Costco employee contradicted his written statement, a statement that was positive for the DA et al but his testimony was clearly not positive for the DA. Thats not to mention numerous witnesses that were not beneficial to the DA's story getting grilled when the DA didnt like what he heard. Take for example the old guy talking about the "gun rug" and saying it cant be fired through that, and the DA wanting him to say that it can as if the guy is any sort of an expert at all one way or the other. Fact finding my rear. More like digging for and presenting corroborating evidence.
I still dont know what exactly happened, although I have an idea. I seriously doubt Scott was any sort of a threat. Witnesses stated the move he made for his gun (if that was what he was doing) was not very fast. That would agree with the prior statements of "disarming". He probably had a cell phone (Blackberry?) in his hand. I suspect this was mistaken for a gun (commands given "drop it drop it"... listen to 911 call). What would you do? Some amped up paranoid cop is yelling at you to "drop it" and you've already been questioned about having a gun on you. Well with 20/20 hindsight I am not doing ANYTHING. Scott apparently got enough yelling to make an attempt to "drop" the weapon that was not in his hand, and got shot for it.
So are we certain 3 fired on him? I'm really curious who fired and how many each.
Oh and to those who dont understand this inquest, go search. This is not a trial, and apparently has zero legal binding. Nobody other than the DA chooses witnesses to testify so saying that people are refusing to come forward is pretty ignorant. The DA has complete control of who is up there. I have seen the DA and judge throw a couple questions out there to give the impression of impartiality, but there have been 3 of those in the 8-10 hours I listened to. Just enough to try and say its neutral, but its far from that.
Too bad there's no video, could put a rest to this nonsense. If he pointed the gun, not much to argue about. If he did not... oh boy.
That Metro officer really needs to get his excessive weight under control. He's overfed and undernourished with a high potential for type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, fatty liver and a multitude of other negative health issues not to mention being that obese really puts a negative impression of the police department and his uniform.
Time for this officer to dump the junk food and consult a professional about a complete diet makeover. If not, the taxpayers of Las Vegas/Clark county will be paying for his health issues.
How can a morbidly obese police officer conduct his daily duties when he is at least 80 pounds over weight?
Did that gun they found really belong to Scott?
What a travesty, as Scott should be still walking amongst us.
The deceased cannot provide input but his gun still in the palm-sized holster speaks volumes. He was in the act of dropping the sheathed weapon in compliance with the COMMAND: Drop It!!!
The shooters had the advantage as they already targeted and had Scott in their sights, but their
panicky hair trigger act was triggered by now those famous words, "a furtive act".
Scott should be still walking amongst us.
So far more than 20 witnesses have testify in coroner's inquest court what they saw, and everyone has different strokes storys.