Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
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.
By Kyle B. Hansen (contact) 
, Cara McCoy
Saturday, Sept. 25, 2010 | 8:28 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
Sun archives
- 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)
The fourth day of testimony in the coroner’s inquest into the police shooting death of Erik Scott was filled with Costco customers who saw the shooting, but not all of their testimonies matched.
Police responded to the store after a Costco employee called 911 to report a man acting erratically, possibly on drugs, damaging merchandise and carrying a pistol in his waistband.
Some witness accounts of what transpired outside the store have conflicted with Metro’s version of events and with the versions explained by other witnesses.
Humberto Rodriguez Jr. said that he didn’t think the July 10 shooting was necessary.
“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, Jo Ann, and his mother-in-law at Costco.
Both husband and wife described Scott as a “man who was frozen in time,” like a deer in the headlights.
Rodriquez 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. And Rodriquez said he didn’t see Scott with a gun.
Rodriguez said he was familiar with police standoffs after one happened at his home involving his brother.
His brother had mental issues, was suicidal and had threatened the family, Rodriquez said. But police were able to use an electric shock to subdue his brother, and he felt they could have done the same with Scott.
However, upon questioning, Rodriquez said his brother was not armed when police came.
Jo Ann Rodriquez’s also testified Saturday, and her story largely matched her husband’s.
Dain Szafranski, another customer who saw the shooting, had a different view of the event.
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 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 was arguing with the officers, he said.
Scott suddenly “snapped,” Szafranski said. He demonstrated how Scott quickly moved his leg back to take a shooting stance while moving his right arm to his waist as if to draw a gun.
“It looked like two people were going to have a gun fight,” he said. But he didn’t see Scott with a gun or see officers shoot because he had turned to run away with his son when he heard gunfire, he said.
Szafranski also has experience with police officers and gunfights. He graduated from the police academy and has been trained in dealing with armed suspects but has been unable to find a job with a local department, he said.
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.
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.”
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, she testified.
Her husband, Will Nelson, saw part of the what happened but was facing a different direction and didn’t see the whole thing, he said.
Will Nelson said he 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 said.
He said he heard a gunshot and the object, which he recognized as a holster, dropped out of Scott’s hand.
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.
He said he believes it would have been a better situation had the officers confronted Scott in the parking lot rather than near the store entrance, where there were more people around.
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.
Evelyn Eckels testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
She said she noticed Scott was holding a gun. “It looked like it was pointed to the officers,” she said.
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. Several witnesses throughout the proceedings have said Scott wasn’t responsive and appeared confused at various points when he was at the store.
“No,” she said. “I feel as if he was just mad about the whole situation.”
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 Scott facing the officer.
“He was not in a defensive manner,” Cooper said. “He was just standing there, almost in a relaxed position initially.”
He said that he felt guilty he didn’t attempt to render aid to Scott after he had been shot. An Army colonel with 27 years of experience, he said he felt someone should have checked on the man before paramedics arrived.
Steve Albright was also shopping at Costco with his wife and two children when they were told to evacuate.
Costco shopper Steve Albright describes the way Erik Scott reached towards he waistband during a coroner's inquest into the shooting of Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
He said he saw Scott’s right hand reach toward his back, right pocket as he was confronted by officers outside the store.
“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, he said. “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.
“When police have their guns pointed at you, you don’t reach and pull out anything whatsoever,” he said.
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.
Costco customer Wendy Wolkenstein testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
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.
Reviewing her statement to police from the witness stand, Wolkenstein said she told the detective she hoped the shooting wasn’t Scott’s fault. She went on to say that she didn’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.
Shopper Karen 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.”
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.
Another shopper, Dr. Edward Fishman, said 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 Scott was shot, Fishman said, he saw his hands above his head before he fell to his knees and then fell face-down on the ground.
Fishman, a physician, said he was concerned that no one went to help Scott or check for a pulse.
Costco shopper Dr. Edward Fishman testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
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 on the ground near him.
Fishman said he gave a statement to police the day of the shooting and also provided a statement to a private investigator hired by the Scott family.
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.
In their statements, both Holzgruber and Langerholm say they saw a gun in the man’s waistband.
Dolly Rand testified she saw a man point out Scott to a police officer, who told Scott to get on the ground.
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.
Assistant District Attorney Chris Owens questioned Rand, who is in a wheelchair, about her line of sight, which would have been different from most other witnesses, who were standing at the time of the shooting.
“It was going up straight towards the police officer,” Rand said.
The officer fired at Scott, then two other officers fired, she said.
Costco shopper Dolly Rand testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Saturday, September 25, 2010.
Rand said she couldn’t tell what Scott was holding but after the bullets hit Scott, the object fell to the ground. She described what she saw as a square leather object, but she said she wasn’t sure if it was a gun or a cell phone.
Her husband, Robert Connolly, 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 as if he was surrendering the weapon, he said, and didn’t point it at the officer.
Others who testified Saturday included two Costco employees, Andrew Muller and Denis Sulc; as well as a husband and wife who had been shopping at the store. The couple were identified as being connected to sensitive law enforcement agencies and could not be identified in media reports.
Jurors will determine whether the shooting was justifiable, excusable or criminal. Coroner’s juries do not have to be unanimous in reaching their verdict. On Wednesday, 11 jurors were seated, which included four alternates. One juror was dismissed Saturday after becoming ill, which means three alternates remain.
Proceedings, which are expected to last at least a couple days next week, are scheduled to resume at 10 a.m. Monday.
Also of note, Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Tony Abbatangelo, who is presiding over the inquest, 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 misinterpreted, or tempers could flare.”
Abbatangelo made his comments outside the presence of the jury.
He was referencing an incident that apparently occurred outside the courtroom during a break. The details of the incident weren’t mentioned, and court officials wouldn’t elaborate when questioned by reporters.
Scott family attorney Ross Goodman declined to meet with members of the media following Saturday’s proceedings.
Family spokeswoman Lisa Mayo-DeRiso said the family was going to spend the day off going through their notes and evaluating the testimony.
The family has been openly critical of the inquest process, calling it flawed and one-sided.
They have also disputed claims that Erik Scott was impaired by prescription drugs while at the store.
A coroner’s inquest is a fact-finding procedure designed to determine the facts surrounding police officer-involved deaths.
Goodman has said the truth of what happened won’t come out unless federal investigators look into the case.
Witnesses that backed cops came first, others last. Why not other way around?
Or alternate witnesses: have a witness supporting the cop's version of events, then a witness backing the Scott family's version of events?
Whole process stinks, it is a choreographed kangaroo court.
It is funny that the hard drive failed to destroy the time frame when the shooting occurred, (17 minute gap in the Nixon tapes??)
In the end, the cops will get off. This was obviously a confused situation given the conflicting testimony. They were told there was a man with a gun, and it turned out the suspect was in fact armed and, it appears, acting erratically.
The police are allowed to shoot suspects if they have a reasonable reason to fear their life, or the live of other people in the area, are in danger. And, as opposed to civilians, they have no duty to retreat out of a life threatening situation. In order for them to be convicted of any crime in relation to this case, the prosecutors would have to prove that they did not have reason to think that lives were in danger, and shot anyway. Given what we've seen of the testimony at this inquest, proving that would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, they won't likely pursue the case.
Where is the Girlfriend? Her disappearance sounds Hinky to me.
The bottom line of this whole inquest is to find grounds for "the family" to file a huge wrongful death suit.
You can tell by the way the "witnesses?" are being questioned.
Cut and dried: The dope addict with a gun was acting irrationally in the store and the police were there to "serve and protect" Police officers are trained to believe when a person shows a gun, they intend to use it. All he had to do was raise his hands and surrender. He made the wrong choice.
I would not carry a gun to go shopping!
Well those of us who have families we care about do carry guns to go shopping. There are so many crazies out there and pedophiles who live in Nevada you almost have to. Unless of course you want to be a victim. I agree he should have thrown up his hands and explained things as they might have been. If you have done nothing wrong, the police will run your info, say be safe with your guy, and leave you alone. So people out there who are not police and carrying guns, are just doing it to protect themselves. I mean what are you going to do if you take your kids to costco or mcdonalds, and some psycho walks in to rob the place and take your kid hostage??? Use harsh language????? Some of us refuse to be victimized, and since our police are outnumbered by the bad guys, prudence demands that people protect themselves.
Once someone has come into the store, taken your child hostage....what are you going to do? Shoot at him? Don't make me laugh.
I support the right to bear arms, but see no need to be packing a gun to go Saturday afternoon shopping at Costco. If he had left his gun at home, he would be alive.
The responsibility that comes with carrying a gun is VERY high. I think there are a lot of responsible gun carriers out there. Sadly there are a lot of people who carry guns and have no idea of the responsibility that goes with it. Erik Scott for example.
With so many different people everyone see's things differently under stress. My understanding is many times, one thing will be crystal clear and all other things will be vague. For example; many times when a person is robbed at gunpoint, the victim can describe the gun used in great detail, but remembers very little about the robber.
It seems clearest that Scott either didn't understand the directions given, was angry and didn't want to comply or unable to understand due to drugs. It seems clear that the cop was in a heightened state of readiness and either correctly reacted to a threat or overreacted to what he perceived to be a threat. Any way you slice it, all scenario's center on decisions and actions made by Scott causing employee's or police to react to him. Very sad.
I don't understand why people hate the inquest so much either. It's an opportunity for the public to be represented by a jury of citizens in deciding if a police officers actions are criminal. My understanding is most places don't have an inquest and it is solely up to the DA if an officer is justified or charges will be pressed or not etc..
If it's the DA's intent to protect the officer then it would be much easier without an inquest I think. If an officer is going to be put on trial every time they have to use deadly force, they would be on paid leave for probably many years before their trial, would have to be represented the entire time and wouldn't have to say or justify anything until that trial date arrived. They certainly would not have to cooperate with this inquest.
I would have liked to have heard from more witnesses, if there are any, because there have been quite a few. In the absence of anything else I would have to say this may have been handled differently but it has to be ruled justified. Holstered, unholstered, looked like a gun but wasn't? Most people understand that when a policeman is pointing a gun at you, you don't point ANYTHING back at him.
Without the inquest we the public would know didly squat about this case other than the DA isn't filing charges and wouldn't for many years until a civil trial occurred. At least this way we are informed and are represented by citizens as part of the process.
I do believe conspiracies exist in Government but I think the inquest makes them harder and more visible not easier to hide. I don't understand why lawyers like Steven Altig, recently convicted of drug and weapons possession, are practicing law in drug court with everyone applauding him for getting help after his arrest or why judges like the one sitting on this inquest convicted of Domestic Violence are still sitting judges. I just throw it up to I wasn't there and hopefully the system worked. I do know one thing though, if either of them were police officers, most of the people on this blog would want their heads on a stick.
Comment removed by moderator. Name-calling.
I dont care how many permits you have. Leave your gun at home. You have the right to have guns, but use some common sense. I got guns, and I am an old, fragile woman. I am not scared to pick up milk and eggs on a Saturday morning. Why was he? Delusional, perhaps?
"""He heard one officer command Scott to "get on the ground" three times; the instructions were loud and clear, he said.
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.
Reviewing her statement to police from the witness stand, Wolkenstein said she told the detective she hoped the shooting wasn't Scott's fault. She went on to say that she didn'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."""
How does one "GET ON THE GROUND" they're already standing upon?
Such a command deserves a "deer in the headlights" response.
"GET ON THE GROUND" which you're already standing upon sounds like a line scripted from the Peter Sellers movie "BEING THERE".
Don't be a stooge, BE SPECIFIC with commands you seek compliant responses from --
"LAY-DOWN" UPON THE GROUND or "SIT-DOWN" UPON THE GROUND.
"DON'T MOVE" precursors may also be helpful when sighting-in targets as well.
As for me - the more people yell and scream, the more I ignore them.
: {
I am puzzled Did the police Vehicles have their cameras on, and which way where they parked. Sideways? Facing the Costco Front using the Car doors as shields if so the Cameras would be pointing straight ahead. I havn't heard or seen anything about this. Dose anyone know?
There are two possibilities:
1. Mosher yelled "drop it" and then Scott took his holster off.
OR
2. Scott took his holster off and then Mosher yelled "drop it" and then Mosher yelled "get on the ground."
Under the first possibility, Scott would have been killed for complying and it is a clear case of murder. Under the second possibility, Mosher should only have repeated "drop it" unless and until the gun was dropped and not proceeded to switch to other commands until Scott complied with his "drop it" command. Under this second possibility, whether Mosher is a murderer depends on whether Mosher was trying to confuse Scott with conflicting commands on purpose, or just out of negligence or recklessness.
Pity that the inquest didn't get into this level of detail and chose to dwell upon irrelevant nonsense instead.
[Witnesses that backed cops came first, others last. Why not other way around?
Or alternate witnesses: have a witness supporting the cop's version of events, then a witness backing the Scott family's version of events?
Whole process stinks, it is a choreographed kangaroo court.
It is funny that the hard drive failed to destroy the time frame when the shooting occurred, (17 minute gap in the Nixon tapes??)
By mred , Sept. 25, 2010, 10:02 p.m.]
You're anti-police, why would you want to let the police have the last word? Any lawyer knows that the last word is worth more in a courtroom setting. I guess you're just seizing on anything you can in your compulsive anti-police behavior.
The video at the Costco entrance wasn't working at all. A repair order was sent out two days before the shooting incident. So, what "gap" are you talking about? Anyway, you said it "failed to destroy the time frame" which would mean it did record the incident. But that statement is irrelevant because none of it was recorded.
Holy Jesus- you aren't even coherent.
[[[ Well those of us who have families we care about do carry guns to go shopping. There are so many crazies out there and pedophiles who live in Nevada you almost have to. Unless of course you want to be a victim.
By oclost , Sept. 25, 2010, 11:24 p.m. ]]]
oclost, the public is more endangered by all you role playing dopes carrying loaded guns (like Erik Scott) than they are by "crazies and pedophiles" at Costco. That's just your bizarre excuse for needing to carry a loaded weapon because it makes you feel superior to everyone else. I'll bet most of you wouldn't even be able to handle a weapon safely if your life was in danger. You'd probably panic and shoot bystanders.
WHY WAS SOMEONE LIKE ERIK SCOTT ISSUED A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT? HE IS QUITE OBVIOUSLY THE LAST TYPE OF PERSON IN THE WORLD WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CARRY A LOADED WEAPON. THE INVESTIGATION THAT IS NEEDED IS AN INVESTIGATION OF WHY ERIK SCOTT WAS ISSUED A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT.
[[[ . . . whether Mosher is a murderer depends on whether Mosher was trying to confuse Scott with conflicting commands on purpose, or just out of negligence or recklessness.
Pity that the inquest didn't get into this level of detail and chose to dwell upon irrelevant nonsense instead.
By Buddy_Hinton , Sept. 26, 2010, 5:03 a.m.]]]
Your comments are an excellent example of irrelevant nonsense.
"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...
The first command was because Erik Scott was reaching for his gun. He ignored it and instead pointed the gun at the police officer.
The second and third commands were because Erik Scott was bringing the gun up to point it at the police officer. He ignored it and instead pointed the gun at the police officer.
If anything Officer Mosher should have shot Erik Scott in the first split second that what appeared to be a gun was identified in his hand rather than continuing to urge him to not do what he was doing.
"The second and third commands were because Erik Scott was bringing the gun up to point it at the police officer. He ignored it and instead pointed the gun at the police officer."
Even if the time sequence of commands and actions was as you say (and I doubt it was, I think Scott only touched his gun after Mosher said "drop it"), the the ONLY command Mosher should have given was "drop it." By switching commands and not allowing Scott a chance to fully comply with the "dro it" command, Mosher was purposely trying to confuse thing and set up an excuse to satisfy his obviously itchy trigger finger.
@cwbattman. Metro cars don't have dash cams.
The interesting thing about the inside video in Costco is this. On Thursday, Lierly while talking to Sword from Vegas Valley Locking Systems tried to reboot the system. Lierly claims that didn't work, yet the system appears to have been left on, creating a folder for video on Friday. Why do you leave a system that is not working on? At approximately 530 PM on Saturday(day of shooting), Wyche from Metro computer forensics tried to reboot the system and a miracle happened. It WORKED, and the video had a great view of the area where the shooting took place. Does that seem logical to anybody else?
As the judge informally timed Mosher's sequence of commands on the 911 tape it was 7 seconds from the time he issued the first command to last command. Not a lot of time and the shots followed immediately afterward. The sequence was NOT command, wait, command, wait. It was a serious of 4 commands in row with no wait between them.
[[[ I think Scott only touched his gun after Mosher said "drop it")
By Buddy_Hinton , Sept. 26, 2010, 6:52 a.m. ]]]
```````````````````````````````````````````````
So your theory is that the police officer was telling Erik Scott to drop something from his hands when his hands were empty? In order to confuse Erik Scott so he could shoot him?
Interesting theory.
The interesting thing about the inside video in Costco is this. On Thursday, Lierly while talking to Sword from Vegas Valley Locking Systems tried to reboot the system. Lierly claims that didn't work, yet the system appears to have been left on, creating a folder for video on Friday. Why do you leave a system that is not working on? At approximately 530 PM on Saturday(day of shooting), Wyche from Metro computer forensics tried to reboot the system and a miracle happened. It WORKED, and the video had a great view of the area where the shooting took place. Does that seem logical to anybody else?
By Tanker1975 , Sept. 26, 2010, 7:13 a.m.
`````````````````````````````
No, it isn't the least bit logical because you are talking about "inside video" and the shooting incident occurred outside. Does that answer your question?
As the judge informally timed Mosher's sequence of commands on the 911 tape it was 7 seconds from the time he issued the first command to last command. Not a lot of time and the shots followed immediately afterward. The sequence was NOT command, wait, command, wait. It was a serious of 4 commands in row with no wait between them.
By Tanker1975 , Sept. 26, 2010, 7:16 a.m.
`````````````````````````
Those few commands could be issued in much less than 7 seconds if issued without pause. You're twisting the facts to pieces.
Do you think Metro should change it's deadly force procedures to require a police officer to first get shot dead before they fire on an armed assailant?
I'm trying to decide which theories are more interesting- yours or "Buddy_Hinton's".
Definantly Erik Scott's girlfriend and the young cadet on day 4 testifying stated that Erik Scott had a conversation that was arguementative and Scott REFUSED to get down. Scott drew his weapon. Case closed!!!
But the good news is if Scott wins, no American will have to listen to an officer again and do what they say to do.
@Buddy
No cop is going to tell a person with a gun in their waistband, holstered to "drop it". He was told hands up, or hands out. He ignored that command, reached for his gun and THAT is when the "drop it" command happened.
When a policeman is confronting an armed (in waistband) person, they will NEVER instruct him to "drop it". It is police procedure 101.
ONLY when that gun has been grabbed and is out will they say "drop it".
Erik was NEVER instructed to grab his gun. That got him killed.
Too many times, police will shout commands at a person. More than one officer is shouting, and often, they are shouting different commands.
"Get on the ground" & "Put down the gun" & "Put your hands in the air", for example.
So what is a reasonable reaction to be shouted at, when you are being commanded by authorities to commit 3 actions?
So, if you are the officer who says, "Get on the ground" and your fellow officer says, "Put down the gun", who are you to obey?
ONE officer needs to take charge of any one situation and become the "lead' in these cases to issue commands.
No one has asked any police officer why it is common practice to shout multiple things at people and expect them to comply by doing what? 3 different things at once?
One thing is clear. Only ONE person should be giving commands.
Boy, the cops are here in full force today.
Full_Deck, you obviously aren't working with a full deck. I've taken the time to watch the inquest in its entirety. William Mosher's commands were given in rapid succession with no time to comply with any of the three different commands he gave. He issued a string of divergent commands and immediately started shooting.
In doing so, he removed any opportunity for Erik Scott to comply with any command. That is bad police work right there.
As for the video, if you had paid any attention at all to the testimony in this inquest, you would have learned that the shooting took place in the covered entrance to the store. That entrance area was observed by the same camera system that covers the inside of the store. The questions about why that specific camera system wasn't working on the day in question are definitely relevant here. Especially because the Costco employee said that the camera system would not work after being "rebooted" but the police forensics officer testified that the system worked perfectly after he "rebooted" it.
It is far too convenient that the first reboot failed and missed the shooting but magically worked perfectly only an few short hours after the shooting. Whether something sinister happened or not, the situation is too suspicious to be dismissed as innocent happenstance.
I have watched the Coroner's Inquest every day, missing very little of it. I am used to watching trials, and observing juries. What is going on at the Inquest is nothing unusual.
A "weight of the evidence" is starting to appear through the testimony of unbiased witnesses.
From hearing the jury's questions, you can draw the conclusion that they "get it".
Unfortunately, the reporters and editors for both newspapers and all television outlets in Las Vegas "don't get it". All of their reporting is way off the mark, in terms of not reporting which witnesses have been impeached. The press is not reporting the weight of the evidence which the jurors and viewers have seen. Just today, one of our local newspapers published a photograph of one of the most not-credible witnesses who testified. (From the questions the jury asked him, I could tell they were not buying his testimony). Conversely, last night one local television station aired the inflammatory testimony of a woman the District Attorney effectively impeached.
My bottom line is that the local "press" is doing a disservice to the public in not reporting, even as editorial rather than news, what is unfolding before the Coroner's Jury in terms of credible evidence.
As an additional failing of the local press, the identity of the truly culpable parties, other than Mr. Scott and Officer Mosher, has not been reported with adequate weight.
My bottom line is that the Coroner's Jury will probably find the shooting justified by a split vote, and that both Costco and Metro will become enmeshed in a protracted personal injury/civil rights case. Costco and Metro will become adversaries in that litigation, and as between the two of them Costco will be the ultimate loser.
TomD:
How do you know what every cop will say or do?
Under pressure everyone acts differently. You simply can't write off the idea that Mosher wanted Scott to disarm, especially since witnesses testified that they interpreted Mosher's commands to mean just that.
Cynical:
Why is the DA impeaching witnesses? What happened to non adversarial?
I wonder which witness you thought was the least credible. My money is on it being the police academy graduate who has two brothers as cops.
Mosher came off as an agressive, over zealous, jerk looking for a target. He couldnt even let his aggressive, tough cop persona go while on the stand- hes a liability to the department- He cant control his trigger finger.If 5 cops are all yelling at someone who has no idea whats going on What are you supposed to listen to? Drop It, Get on the ground or whatever other screaming was going on- Sound to me through the testimony that he dropped it and was executed by a firing squad of idiot cops. I love cops for the job they do- but, this was a major blunder- Just admit it Metro - mistakes were made. Mosher needs to go. Next time he kills someone, perhaps a kid with a toy gun-then what? The Scott family has a right to be angry- Im angry and I didnt even know Eric.
The situation was terribly mishandled, which is what led up to the fatal confrontation. The decedent was obviously no danger to anyone as he walked away from Costco with his girlfriend. He hadn't threatened anyone, nor done anything illegal other than arguably commit a misdemeanor destruction of property (assuming he wouldn't have purchased the items contained in the several packages he broke open), perhaps trespassing by refusing to leave, but even that is in question due to conflicting testimony, and carrying weapons while under the influence of prescription drugs, if that is a crime.
The girlfriend, Samantha Sterner, said in her statement to police that they had arrived at Costco in her vehicle, so presumably the decedent wasn't even going to drive. If he did drive, they could have stopped him for DUI, in a much safer environment that in front of Costco. It was either poor training, poor judgment, or a combination of both. Officer Mosher testified that he has had Crisis Intervention Training, which focuses on defusing, rather then escalating, situations involving drugged up and/or mentally ill people. It is so far unknown why he chose not to use that training, and instead chose to escalate the situation. To me, deliberately escalating and provoking the situation when he had training and knew better than to do so was gross negligence.
Metro had no reason to confront the decedent when and where they did. In my layman's opinion, doing so was grossly negligent, endangering many innocent bystanders. The testimony was that Officer Mosher was the senior officer at the scene at that time; he could have simply allowed the decedent to walk away. Instead, he provoked a confrontation, resulting in the killing. The other two officers merely piled on, firing four more shots into the decedent's back after the weapon was already on the ground, from all testimony so far. At that point, Mr. Scott was already obviously incapacitated and near death. I hope the other two officers testify; it will be interesting to hear their views, even though the testimony will be carefully crafted and presented.
Gross negligence = criminal.
@ lvmp1066
I can tell you from 30+ years of doing depositions and trials that the lawyers from the DA's office are doing a great job in impeaching each witness whose testimony might be useful to the Scott family in a civil suit.
The reason for the impeachment is very simple. The DA and his deputies act as "county counsel" and are likely to be involved in defending Metro and its "owners" in a wrongful death/civil rights lawsuit brought by Scott's family. It is important to "Metro's owners" that any witness favorable to the Scott family be impeached by their own words at the same time that they give their favorable testimony.
The Scott family's lawyer is trying to do the same thing through his written questions to witnesses favorable to Metro.
My personal conclusion is that this Coroner's Inquest process should be abolished completely rather than expanded into a full adversary hearing, under the rules of evidence, in which Metro officers would not want to participate.
My personal conclusion is that the Sheriff can fire any deputy he thinks has violated department policies, etc. and that is enough in terms of vindicating Metro. A full adversary hearing aka trial will inevitably occur when there is a question about whether an officer involved shooting is justified. That one trial is good enough. The public does not need to bear the costs of both a "show trial" and a "real trial".
So, to boil it down to brass tacks here, what you are saying is that the DA isn't doing what we have been told would happen, which is an impartial "fact-finding" process, but is rather using the process to manipulate information with the goal of influencing future legal proceedings.
It is truly a shame that our "justice" system is being manipulated in such a way.
Whether you believe the police are without fault in this matter or otherwise, I don't think any reasonable person can accept this farce of a proceeding or those perpetrating it as worthy of the public trust.
@CynicalObserver: "Rules of evidence"--what a novel concept....
As for the "officers might not want to participate" line, in other jurisdictions throughout the country, law enforcement officers are subpoenaed to testify in all types of legal proceedings and interviews--NYPD officers involved in shootings are required to provide testimony to independent civilian review board investigators and Seattle officers can be subpoenaed to testify at coroner's inquests.
It's time Metro is let in on a little secret. Most civilians don't like testifying, either.
And if the officer is really worried that he might self-incrminiate himself, he can protect himself with the 5th Amendment.
But the "I'll only testify in a venue where I know I'll go free regardless of I'm guilty or not" schtick is somewhat laughable...
One of the posters here said he (Meaning Erik Scott) took a shooting position. REALLY??? If your not a killer cop, one doesn't know what that means. I have never heard the expression, because I'm not a killer cop. CARE to explain what that means to the rest of us at risk of being murdered by killer cops??
@full_deck. There were two cameras on the interior video system that look back into the door area. Det Calos(not sure of spelling of his name) showed video that was taken at 530 pm July 10, after Mr Wyche rebooted that system that clearly showed the scene. It was so clear and detailed that you could see the shell casing, the blood pool, and the HOLSTERED weapon. The video was more detailed and clearer than the picture the DA is using to have witnesses. I was in the courtroom during this testimony and video. I believe that the camera angle used was camera 14, with camera 4 showing the other view looking back into the main door area.
Mosher admitted under oath that the command of the three he issued, that he expected to be obeyed was get on the ground. So I would imagine that if any other command was complied with, like drop it he would have viewed it as threat. Lierly has been in the courtroom for several days of the inquest, after his testimony, why?
Why haven't we had testimony from the other officers yet? D.A expecting to finish strong and overwhelm the jury. Very good strategy if it were a trial, but I thought this was a fact finding proceeding.
Whats this idiot doing in a store in the first place with a gun people can see? Idiot.....This day and time carrying a gun!!!! Idiot Idiot Idiot!!! IDIOT!!
All witnesses seemed to agree that Mr. Scott appeared dazed, used his right hand to grab something from his waist, and took that dark item out. So how is that conflicting testimony?