Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Metro Police Detective Peter Calos holds a .45 caliber handgun owned by Erik Scott during a coroner’s inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Monday, September 27, 2010.
By Kyle B. Hansen (contact) 
, Cara McCoy
Published Monday, Sept. 27, 2010 | 10:11 a.m.
Updated Monday, Sept. 27, 2010 | 6:24 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
- Witnesses give conflicting accounts of Costco police shooting (9-25-10)
- Day 4 blog: Witnesses recall fatal police shooting at Costco (9-25-10)
- 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)
5:53 p.m.
Peter Calos, the Metro homicide detective who oversaw the investigation into Scott’s death, brought additional evidence to the inquest Monday after initially testifying on Thursday.
A recording of police radio traffic was played for the court and Calos showed the jury the two guns that were with Scott.
In addition to the weapons, Scott carried seven gun registration cards with him in his wallet as well as his concealed carry permit. Calos also recovered a cell phone from the scene of the shooting, he said.
The detective said he researched Scott’s traffic accident history because his girlfriend claimed he had been in an accident the previous day.
Scott had been in three accidents this year, including the one the day before the shooting, which Calos said was his fault. Police records indicated no one was injured in any of them, he said.
Calos also researched Scott’s prescriptions and medical records since the autopsy showed he had prescription drugs in his system.
Scott had an extensive list of medications that had been prescribed to him, including some from a doctor who frequently gave prescriptions without showing detailed medical records, Calos said. Scott had an “inordinate amount” of pain medications, Calos said.
When asked if it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm without a permit or while under the influence, Calos said yes.
It was also not clear if Scott was actually licensed to carry one of the guns because the manufacturer’s name was different than what he was carrying, although the two guns were similar, Calos said.
Bullet fragments and casings were also found at the scene of the shooting, Calos said. The casings show that Officer William Mosher fired twice, Officer Thomas Mendiola fired four times and Officer Joshua Stark fired once.
Testimony for the day has concluded. The jury is dismissed, but the judge said he will stay until 6 p.m. to read questions into the record that were submitted but not asked.
5:13 p.m.
Metro homicide Detective Peter Calos, who testified Thursday, is back on the stand today.
He is showing the jury the two guns Erik Scott had with him on the day of the shooting. One was found on the ground after the shooting and the other was found in Scott’s pocket on the way to the hospital.
Calos was the lead detective to investigate the shooting.
4:26 p.m.
Clark County firefighter Chris Thorpe testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Monday, September 27, 2010. Scott was shot and killed by Metro Police Officers at the Summerlin Costco store on July 10.
Clark County firefighter Chris Thorpe was one of the first people to reach Erik Scott after the shooting and accompanied him to the hospital for treatment.
He said officials were called to Costco, but had to wait a short distance away while Metro confirmed that the scene was safe.
They also had a slight delay getting to Scott because of the amount of traffic leaving the parking lot, but were at the store within a minute of getting the call, he said.
When he arrived, Thorpe found Scott laying face-down with handcuffs on. He asked for the handcuffs to be removed, then they rolled Scott onto a backboard, he said.
Scott wasn't breathing and had no heart rate, Thorpe said.
They loaded Scott onto a gurney and into an ambulance to go to the hospital. Thorpe rode with Scott in the ambulance, he said.
Paramedics gave Scott oxygen, performed CPR and gave him medication to try to restart his heart, but they weren't able to revive him, Thorpe said.
In the ambulance, he found a small handgun in Scott’s right pocket and some ammunition clips in his left pocket, Thorpe said. Those items were immediately given to the police officer who accompanied them in the ambulance.
Another firefighter and a paramedic from the ambulance company also rode in the back of the ambulance to the hospital, Thorpe said.
"I think everything was done as best we could (to save his life)," Thorpe said.
4:10 p.m.
The inquest is back in session after a short break. Clark County firefighter Chris Thorpe is on the stand.
3:53 p.m.
Costco shopper Lee Mendell testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Monday, September 27, 2010. Mendell is demonstrating how Scott pointed a gun at an officer.
Lee Mendell, another Costco shopper, also saw the shooting and said Scott pointed a gun at a police officer.
She said an officer was shouting commands at Scott to get down. Scott reached down and then lifted a gun and pointed it at the officer, she said.
“I only know it’s a gun and I saw the gun, but what kind of gun I can’t answer that, I don’t know,” she said.
She heard the officer fire, but then looked up to see a helicopter overhead, she said. By the time she looked back, Scott was on the ground.
“The whole thing was a shock to me. I didn’t understand it,” she said.
The inquest is taking a 10 minute break.
3:38 p.m. (Updated at 3:43 p.m.)
Costco shopper Christine Dye testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Monday, September 27, 2010.
Christine Dye, the wife of the previous witness, said she isn't sure she saw Scott with a gun before he was shot.
She said she saw an officer pointing a gun at Scott, telling him to “get down on the ground, do it now.” She said Scott “looked a little bewildered.”
Scott then reached into his pocket or to his waist, where she saw something dark, perhaps a wallet, but she wasn't sure what it was, she said. But she did see him make a motion of pulling something out of his waist area, she said.
Her husband then told her to get down, which she did before she heard gunshots, she said. Her husband pushed her to the ground and put his body on top of her.
"Kind of before it happened, Mike knew there was going to be trouble," she said of her husband's actions before she heard gunshots.
After she got up she saw Scott’s legs on the ground, she said.
3:24 p.m.
Costco shopper Michael Dye testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Monday, September 27, 2010.
Michael Dye was shopping at Costco with his wife and saw the shooting outside the store.
As they were leaving, Dye said he heard shouting. When he turned to see what was happening, he saw a police officer with his gun pointed at Scott, who was 8 to 10 feet away from the officer, he said.
The officer yelled “Get down, get on the ground, do it now,” Dye said.
He then saw Scott reach for the left side of his waistband, where he noticed the handle of a gun, and Scott started to pull it out, Dye said.
He then pushed his wife to the ground and he went down to cover her, he said. There was more shouting and shots were fired, Dye said.
He said what he saw in Scott’s waistband was not a cell phone.
“I am 100 percent convinced that that was a gun,” he said.
In response to a question from an interested party, Dye said, "it seemed surreal what was happening. I couldn't imagine someone wouldn't comply (with the officer's commands) ... especially finding out later that he was a concealed weapons (permit) holder."
3:17 p.m.
Bettie Lou Travis, who works at Costco giving food samples, testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Monday, September 27, 2010.
Bettie Lou Travis, who works at Costco giving food samples, testified she saw Scott point a gun toward a police officer.
After being told to evacuate the store, she saw Scott talking to an officer, then he raised his shirt with his left hand and brought his right hand to the back of his right side, she said.
“I thought maybe he was going to pull a gun,” she said.
He just stood there, she said, and didn't comply with the officer's commands.
Then he kind of "fluttered his shirt," and Travis said she thought, "Oh my gosh, he's going to pull a gun." Then she ducked out of the way.
Scott brought his hand up, and “he was holding the gun in a shooting position,” she said.
Travis said she ducked and moved toward a column to get away and then heard a gun go off.
“I didn’t wait to see him drop it or whatever he was going to do,” she said.
She said at first she didn't know who fired their gun, but she later noticed Scott’s body on the ground when she walked by again.
2:55 p.m.
David Seidlitz, a Costco customer, testified that he heard officers tell Scott to get on the ground. Scott turned toward an officer before shots were fired, he said.
After the shooting, he heard a woman yelling something about the man being in the service, Seidlitz said.
He saw a gun on the ground and saw an officer turn Scott over so he was on his stomach, then handcuff him, Seidlitz said.
A paramedic later came and performed CPR on Scott, he said.
Scott was acting normally before he was stopped by a police officer, Seidlitz said.
“He just was walking toward the parking lot like he was leaving like everyone else,” he said.
2:36 p.m. (Updated at 2:51 p.m.)
The district attorney’s office played two recorded statements from witnesses.
In the first, customer David Warner said he heard the officer order Scott to get on the ground and then he heard six to eight shots fired rapidly.
Scott never raised his hands above his head, but Warner said he couldn't see below Scott’s shoulders because of someone standing in the way. Warner described the gunfire as "just like a string of firecrackers."
As his interview with the officer was concluding, Warner was asked if he had more to say. He said he did.
He said the Scott family's attorney was spreading "B.S."
"They shot him four times on the ground, that's all malarkey. I know that for a fact," he said, apparently referring to reports that had circulated that Scott had been shot in the back after he had already fallen to the ground.
Warner gave his statement Aug. 20 at the Metro homicide division. He is out of state caring for a family member, so he couldn't be at the inquest, Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent said.
The second recording was from Sherri Dorsey, a Costco employee who is under a doctor’s care and also couldn't come to the inquest, Laurent said.
Dorsey said she was trying to usher customers away from the entryway of Costco when shots were fired. She was telling customers to go to their cars, she said.
She said she believed the white male customer had fired one shot at the officer before he was shot and killed.
Dorsey said the man had his gun pointed at the officer. When she heard shots, she turned and ran.
"At that point, I'm just hoping I don't get shot," she said.
She heard more shots as she was running away from the scene, she said. Dorsey said she saw Scott raise his shirt and then saw a police officer shoot him once.
She then started to run and heard more gunshots, she said. Her oral statement was given the day of the shooting at the Costco store.
2:03 p.m.
The inquest has resumed after a lunch break. Judge Tony Abbatangelo is reading questions submitted by interested parties that weren't asked of witnesses. The jury is expected to return shortly for witness testimony to resume.
1:07 p.m.
Ronald Montgomery, a law enforcement official with Homeland Security, demonstrates how Erik Scott brought up his holstered gun on a Metro Police officer as he testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Monday, September 27, 2010.
Witness Ronald Montgomery, who has worked in law enforcement for Homeland Security for 23 years, said he felt officers had no choice but to shoot Scott.
Montgomery was shopping at Costco when he and his wife were told to evacuate. He was near a police officer outside the store when the officer yelled “get on the ground,” he said.
He then heard the officer order Scott, who was about 20 feet away from Montgomery, to either drop the gun or drop the weapon, but he isn’t sure which word was used.
Montgomery said he saw Scott holding the handle of a gun, raising it from his waist to shoulder level in front of him, pointed at the officer.
Scott had a “full grip” on the gun, but didn't have his finger on the trigger and the gun was in a holster, he said.
“He wasn’t complying with the commands,” Montgomery said of Scott.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent asked what Montgomery expected the officer to do at that point.
“The only way they could, in my opinion,” Montgomery said. Since Scott failed to obey commands and brought his weapon up, they had to shot him, he said.
Montgomery said he heard three shots as Scott raised the gun.
Scott then bent at the waist and slowly fell to the ground, he said. He didn’t hear other shots after Scott bent over, Montgomery said.
The inquest is taking an hour lunch break.
12:44 p.m.
Costco employee Ralph Smithwick demonstrates how Erik Scott reacted after being shot as he testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Monday, September 27, 2010. Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent listens at left.
Costco employee Ralph Smithwick testified that he saw what appeared to be a gun under Erik Scott’s clothing and heard an officer twice say “get on the ground.”
Smithwick said Scott reached across his body with his left hand to lift the right side of his shirt after the officer’s orders. That’s when Smithwick said he saw the gun handle, but he didn’t see what his right hand was doing.
A police officer then fired once, and Scott looked like the wind was knocked out of him. He went up on his toes, his back was arched and his hands went up into the air, Smithwick said.
The other two officers then fired at Scott, which knocked him to the ground, Smithwick said.
He then heard Scott’s girlfriend yelling that he had been in the military and had a permit, Smithwick said. He said he also noticed what appeared to be a gun on the ground.
At first Smithwick said Scott had been hit with a Taser and it wasn't until he talked to a police officer later that he realized Scott was dead.
Smithwick, who said he was 8 to 10 feet away from Scott during the shooting, said he didn’t think Scott was holding a gun or a cell phone when he was shot.
He said he does think Scott had time to comprehend the instructions given to him before shots were fired.
He also said he didn’t think police had any choice but to shoot because Scott’s actions looked threatening.
12:08 p.m.
Costco shopper Howard Brooks, a public defender, testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Monday, September 27, 2010. Brooks is demonstrating how a Metro Police officer shot Scott.
Howard Brooks, a public defender who represented murder suspects for 11 years, witnessed his first shooting at Costco.
He said the second and third officers didn't need to shoot Scott. It was “gratuitous violence,” he said.
Brooks had finished his shopping when he noticed three police officers as he left the store, he said. The first officer had his gun out; “He seemed very nervous and aggressive,” Brooks said.
He then noticed two more officers with their guns out.
Brooks said he took his purchases to his car, then returned to the front of the store so he could see what was happening.
He saw a large crowd of people leaving the store and was told by another customer they were evacuating because there was a man with a gun inside.
He said Scott walked out normally, then he heard the first officer yell “drop it” and instantly fired his gun.
“It is absolutely immediate,” he said.
Brooks said he heard part of the 911 tape of the shooting played on the news, and knows his story doesn’t match. It is possible he didn’t hear everything since he was 25 feet away, he said.
“Obviously I didn’t hear everything, but what I heard was the officer say ‘drop it’ and bam, bam, bam,” he said.
Brooks also insisted Scott was shot in the back, despite every other witness saying he was shot in the chest. And he said Scott was already falling on his face when the other two officers came up and fired.
“I couldn’t see any reason in the world why these shots were being fired,” he said.
Brooks also said he went around to look for a gun but never saw one.
"I never saw Erik Scott do anything out of the ordinary at all, except get shot," Brooks said after a question from an interested party.
But Assistant District Attorney Chris Owens earlier pointed out that Brooks said in his statement to police that he was watching the officer, not Scott.
However, Brooks said he wasn't happy with the way the police officer took his statement. Brooks gave his statement, but the recorder didn't work, so he had to give it again and he didn't give as thorough a statement the second time, Brooks said.
Owens said it sounded like Brooks had a bias against police. Brooks insisted he didn't, but he said he thinks they do a bad job taking witness statements.
Owens also pointed out that Brooks found the officer in a different position than every other witness. He also had a few other inconsistencies between his testimony today and his statement to police, Owens said.
The inquest is taking a 10-minute break.
11:20 a.m.
Costco employee Clayton Phillips testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Monday, September 27, 2010.
Clayton Phillips is a Costco employee but had finished his shift and stayed at the store to do some shopping with his wife when they were told to evacuate the store.
As they walked away from the checkout stands, he noticed a man get a shopping cart and go back into the store, which was odd since everyone else was leaving, he said.
While Phillips was leaving the store, he said he noticed a police officer with his gun drawn, so he turned to walk backward while moving away from the store's exit so he could watch what was happening.
He then saw the man who had grabbed the cart, who turned out to be Erik Scott, come out of the store.
He heard the officer yell commands to “get down” and to “drop your weapon,” he said. Phillips said he isn't sure which was yelled first, but he is sure both were yelled.
Scott reached behind him, pulled his shirt up and put his hand on a gun at his back, Phillips said.
As Scott brought the gun around his body toward the officer, he heard gunshots.
“Here we go, we’re going to have a shootout,” Phillips said he thought.
He then pushed his wife behind him because he wasn't sure what was going to happen, he said.
Phillips said he heard more shots and saw Scott fall on the ground.
An interested party asked if Phillips felt threatened by Metro since Phillips was standing behind Scott.
“My concern was not with Metro, my concern was with Erik Scott,” he said, explaining that he couldn’t see the officer, but he saw Scott pull a gun. “I knew there was a threat and I felt Erik was the threat,” he added.
Phillips also said his wife said she didn't see the weapons or anything important that happened.
10:51 a.m.
Costco shopper William Carlston testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Monday, September 27, 2010. Scott was shot and killed by Metro Police Officers at the Summerlin Costco store on July 10. Carlston is describing the position of Scott's hands after he was shot and fell to the ground
The first witness of the day was William Carlston, who was shopping at Costco with his wife the day of the shooting.
He was told to evacuate and noticed two police officers while leaving the store.
Carlston said he later saw Scott facing the officer. Scott looked agitated and was looking back and forth, Carlston said.
He saw Scott’s arm move back and then forward toward the officer, who was about 10 feet away, but he couldn't see Scott’s hands, so he wasn't sure what he was doing, Carlston said.
He heard shouting and a loud command, but he couldn't tell what was said or who was talking, he said.
After Scott moved his arm forward, he saw an officer fire. Scott staggered and, "when he turned to his left, I saw in his right hand, a gun," Carlston said.
After the shots were fired, people started running away and Carlston was knocked down to his knee and couldn't see what happened next, he said.
When he got back up, he saw Scott on the ground, face-down, with his hands above his head, he said.
"A foot or two to his left side, a gun was laying on the ground," Carlston said.
His wife was with him, but she got down on the ground when she heard a command to do so and she didn't see anything, he said.
10:19 a.m.
On the stand is William Carlston, who was shopping with his wife near household goods/cleaning supplies at Costco when he was ordered to evacuate.
10:15 a.m.
The fifth day of testimony in the coroner’s inquest into the police shooting death of Erik Scott is to get under way shortly at the Regional Justice Center in downtown Las Vegas. The proceedings were to begin at 10 a.m., and the judge and jurors entered about 10:15 a.m.
The inquest, a fact-finding process used to determine the facts surrounding police officer-involved deaths, began Wednesday.
Police responded to the Summerlin Costco on July 10 when an employee called 911 to report a man acting erratically, possibly on drugs, damaging merchandise and carrying a pistol in his waistband.
Shortly after police arrived, Scott was shot to death outside the door by three officers.
Officer William Mosher, the first of three officers who fired shots at Scott and the first to pull his trigger, testified Thursday and Friday. The other two officers, Joshua Star and Thomas Mendiola, are expected on the stand this week.
CORRECTION: This story originally said Officer Mosher fired three times, but it was corrected to twice. | (September 28, 2010)
HA. The DA is getting put in his place by this defense attorney and boy oh boy is he coming off like a dick. Guess what Mr. Assistant District Attorney, you are getting beaten at your own game.
You think so? Sounds like the witness is making stuff up.
He is using the witness stand to critique police tactics.
I'm ready for this travesty of justice to be over! It was a 'legal' ambush where he was accused, tried, and executed in a moment of confusion. Sad sad sad. This is wrong on so many levels. Do police always take a caller's word for the events, or do they try to observe said criminal act before deciding? Had they gone into the store, they would have seen that this event was escalated by store employees, especially the LP guy, who is obviously trying to make himself feel more important in all of this than he should have been. He is loss prevention, not a safety monitor. He took it upon himself to inject himself in a situation that had nothing to do with his job. Had the cops observed him first, this could have been prevented. Very sad and scary that cops are so quick to shot first ask questions later.
The criminal defense attorney sounds like he is making stuff up as he goes. He just comes off like a complete jerk. He's the only witness, on both sides of Mr. Scott having a gun or not, that said he didn't see officer's when he left the store. Maybe he thought HE could be involved in the family's lawsuit or defend Mr. Scott if he would have lived.
Not sure what the tactics are but he probably did not need to be shot beyond the initial gunfire.
I still cannot understand why Erik, with all of his training would decide to pull his gun out. I can only assume his judgement was clouded by drugs.
Comment removed by moderator. Comment contained an advertisement.
It would be funny (yes, funny) if the defense attorney moved close to Scott's body to slip a business card into his pocket. "Call me if you make it."
Tom;
I think in his drugged mind, he probably thought it was the right thing to do....
Bad choice it got him killed. Popping the pills was also a bad choice. And being paranoid enough to carry two guns did not help.
Sad, but shoot is either justified or at the VERY least excusable.
I still think a grossly overweight cop that has pulled his gun hundreds of times on the job (that would amount to every other shift), running into a crowd with a gun drawn and then confronting the "criminal" while he is still in a crowd is IDIOTIC. Mosher's CCW should be revoked and he should not be "protecting me and my family in any many other than writing traffic tickets"
I don't know the defense attorney but he seems to have a bad taste in his mouth for police, saying they are trained to get "off the record" statements for some unknown purpose. It sounds like he was plucked from this forum full of knuckleheads to testify. He loved being up there, didn't he?
Ya'll must have missed the part about him being a Public Defender for murder trails!
I just don't like when witnesses throw in adjectives to support or defend their answers. His continuous use of the word "gratuitous" starts to sound self serving, as if he has an axe to grind.
@Brian
I just simply don't know if their is a standard protocol for this type of situation. Let him walk to his car? Let him get to the parking lot? You tell me what the proper police protocol is.
If he had only not grabbed his gun, my feeling is he would be alive. This guy needed help, badly. I wonder if his friends saw any of this erratic behavior. Swearing at employees, not understanding how to fill out a simple form. This was not a guy lacking in education or smarts. Something snapped that day.
My biggest problem with this situation is that they shot to kill as opposed to shooting to disarm or disable. Hope I never make a mistake in the presence of an officer, unless I'm ready to die.
Usually you get the suspect ISOLATED. Everywhere, you isolate. When you cannot isolate (ie. if he would not leave the store), you wait for SWAT (or the response teams that are trained to deal with this).
Henderson PD did an outstanding job of this (which unfortunately led to one suspect's death) earlier this year.
There are teams trained to deal with this situation.
Mosher claimed he was going to wait outside for his SGT. but did not really expand on why he felt he could not wait.
bikermama;
When you shoot a handgun, you always aim towards the biggest target on a person. It is near impossible to "shoot to disarm". That is just the way it is.
Now shooting that black kid threw his head with an assault rifle, does not really follow this, does it? But I am sure we will see Yant go to prison before 2011 ends.......
@Brian: It is not impossible as other police agency do aim to disable. 2 shots to the chest would certainly disable him, and no other shots were necessary at that point. It was an ambush.
BTW Brian, are you speaking as a CCW holder, or from a highly trained Crisis Intervention officer's point of view? Makes a big difference. If you are a CCW holder, then your training would be different that a CIO who has extensive training in trying to de-escalate a situation. That didn't happen here.
From Mosher's point of view: he is not SWAT, he has been on the force 5 years (as a patrolman). He would be trained to pump rounds into the chest.
Our points are not that much different:
I think if this "situation" was NOT exaggerated by Costco, and was responded to in a more professional manner, Erik Scott would have been in the parking lot being told to never "trespass" on costco property again (and likely his girlfriend would have been told to drive him home). I think the response was WRONG but after Mosher put himself in the situation, the shoot was "excusable" because it seems Scott grabbed his gun.
Scott screwed his life up big time. A lot of people would kill to have the life he wasted away on drugs. If he was sober, this would not have happened.
MSH1: Agreed; he must have jumped through dozens of hoops to succeed in gaining witness status at this inquest. I get the impression he jumped up and down a lot, waved his arms wildly, and yelled, "Pick me! Pick me! I brought my own tape measure!"
bikermama:
If police agencies are training their officers to aim to disable that police agency is doing a disservice to its officers.
In every firearms training program that I've participated in, including tactical programs similar to police training, the training was to shoot "center mass."
I'd be extremely surprised if metro teaches their officers to "wing 'em."
TomD:
The defense attorney's use of the word "gratuitous" is certainly relevant, as it paints a picture of his perception of the officer's actions. The lawyer may not have any training in interpreting police tactics, but the Costco rent-a-cop doesn't have any medical training, yet he was allowed to use some self serving language to describe Scott's appearance.
No wonder people have a bad taste about lawyers. Self serving individual. Sounded like the lawyer had an agenda.
Brian said: From Mosher's point of view: he is not SWAT, he has been on the force 5 years (as a patrolman). He would be trained to pump rounds into the chest.
My reply: Mosher testified that he is a Crisis Intervention Officer with many hours of training in that field, and that is why he "volunteered" to take this call, as he was on another call at the time. Did you watch his testimony?
To LVMP????: Why would this be a disservice to officers if they aim to disarm/disable? To do otherwise is a disservice to citizens, as all citizen, even Illegal Immigrants have rights. To shoot to kill, when making assumptions, is to prejudge a citizen, and in this country we are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Of course Mr. Brooks would be critical of the police officers' actions. He represented murder suspects for 11 years, all of whom were innocent. I have a news flash for you - Erik B. Scott, had he not drawn his firearm, would have died during an ensuing scuffle with the police officers because of his toxic levels of narcotics.
What I want to know and what disturbs me is why did it take so long for medical assistance to be called in? They were on the scene staged somewhere in or near the parking lot, if I've read correctly.
The M.E. said that none of the shots were immediately fatal. If Erik had received timely care, could he have lived and maybe gotten help for that messed up addiction? If Metro ever feels compelled to give me two in the front and five in the back, I hope they'll do me the courtesy of calling an ambulance.
Bikeremama - what does shoot to disarm mean? Where would one shoot to disarm someone?
This is why it takes awhile to get medical on scene, even when they are staging nearby.
1. Shot are fired and someone is down - cop says on the radio "Roll medical!"
2. Dispatcher, on top of handling all the radio traffic for that particular incident, also has to call FD or MedicWest dispatchers and tell them it is safe to approach the scene.
3. Their dispatchers then have to relay that info to the waiting ambulance. Depending on all the stuff that is going on, that could take 30 seconds or 5 minutes. Sometimes the officers requesting medical might have to run out to the ambulance to wave them over - and in the midst of a dynamic situation that might take a minute or two - even when its priority #1.
Its no one's fault if the ambulance was a little late, thats just the way it is sometimes.
Bikermama:
The point of training cops to shoot center mass is because most street cops are really awful shooters under stress. In fact, most "basically trained" shooters are pretty bad, even military personnel, who often have a tendency to shoot off target until they have significant combat experience.
Most cops will never find themselves in a shooting situation. If it should happen to a cop, it will likely be a first time scenario, and they have to be trained to shoot in the most effective way possible. That is center mass shooting.
Hell, look at the targets cops shoot in training. They are silhouette targets and don't even include arms. Google b-34 target to see what one looks like.
When cops shoot, they should shoot to kill.
The question here is why did the cops shoot? The police are given a wide range of "less lethal ordnance" to use in place of firearms. These range from batons, OC (pepper spray), tasers, bean bag rounds in a shotgun (one of the officers on scene that day had a shotgun.)
Several witnesses have testified that they in fact thought the police were tasing Scott.
Why didn't they?
Everyone who saw him said he wasn't acting in a threatening manner. Everyone said he didn't grab at his gun until after the cop grabbed him and started issuing conflicting and confusing commands.
I don't blame the cops for shooting center mass. I do blame them for shooting him seven times (five in the back). And I do blame them for shooting in the first place. Nobody had to die that day. The cops created a situation where someone died. That is what is inexcusable.
It's all window dressing now and the fact that the shooting will be justified is forgone.
Certainly the Scott family intends to sue. Most likely a jury will find enough doubt to award a settlement.
logic_should_rule said "Certainly the Scott family intends to sue. Most likely a jury will find enough doubt to award a settlement."
I agree 100%. I think there should be a civil suit and I think that the Scott family should be found liable and forced to repay Clark County for the circus they demanded and for the costs and damages that Erik caused.
This is sounding more like a justified shooting, but the one-sided nature of everything is apalling. You can see why cops can kill without fear of the coroner's inquest.
To MSH1: They could have shot him in the groin, that would have brought him down quickly. I would even go so far as to say they could shoot him in the chest, just as the first officer did, but to continue to shoot at that point is an ambush.
LVMP1066 said: The point of training cops to shoot center mass is because most street cops are really awful shooters under stress. In fact, most "basically trained" shooters are pretty bad, even military personnel, who often have a tendency to shoot off target until they have significant combat experience.
My response: This just solidifies to me that shooting a suspect should be a last resort. It was not in this case.
Remember people, the Police work for us and need to be accountable to us!
If I represented the Scott's I would not want the civil case to go anywhere near a jury. As far as overnlown stories, this ranks up there with Y2K.
wendor-Well, sorry but get ready for some disappointment at taxpayer expense.
Ross Goodman and the Scott family will most likely collect a 7 figure settlement. Too bad no other options such as a Taser were used.
Wow! the killer cops are out in force today on this blog! Don't give any information about yourself on this blog, unless you want a knock at your door with the Killer cops there ready to make you next!
Logic - see my responses to lvmp regarding tasers.
Tasers are not 100% effective (even the manufacturer says so) and attempting to tase suspects with guns in their hands will end with you getting shot sooner or later.
Erik Scott forfeited his right to non-lethal force the moment he disregarded his training and placed his hand on his weapon.
Wendor:
That's the mantra of lazy cops right there.
The cops outnumbered Scott 3 to 1. At least two of them had ZERO reason to have their weapons unholstered. It takes no more time to pull the trigger on a taser than it does to pull the trigger on a glock.
wendor-I had a discussion about this situation last night. Scott's big mistake was not following orders. His training should have told him to drop to the ground as he was told. I know I would have. But I still believe that effective lawyering and a sympathetic jury will result in a settlement.
Btw, long story but years ago, someone entered my house at 3am. I could have easily and justifiably shot the intruder but I didn't. I also complied with the police dispatcher and put down my gun when the cops arrived and they apprehended the intruder outside my house.
So I do have more real life experience then most anyone you'll ever meet in a very dangerous situation.
At the start of all this I wasn't on either side. I just wanted to know the truth or at least hear from all sides. I find it very interesting that the Scott family says they want the truth also but all the Scott's family investigator has spoken to are the witnesses who didn't see a gun. It doesn't sound to me that they want the truth they just want to confirm thier side of the events.
Counselor Brooks is so typical of a public defender. He has spent the last 11 years defending the dregs of society, 99% of which belong in jail. He probably was snooping around to see if he could gain another client, ie person getting arrested. His testimony was useless.
NOTE TO ALEX 2:
Have you not read this article? Evidently not since you do not understand that the second Mr. Scott put his hand on his weapon - that was it. You also are suffereing a severe case of paranoia about the police. Have you sought professional help?
Mosher said they wanted the element of surprise, but then objects to the fact that they caught Erik Scott by surprise. Doesn't make sense.
IMO, nothing significantly new so far in today's testimony. Time to hear from the other two officers.
The public defender's testimony was a joke. He says he exited the store, saw the cops as he exited, went to his car, put his purchases away, RETURNED to the scene, and witnessed the shooting. Doing all of these things would take way longer than the typical time-line as described by the consensus of witness testimony. If I was a juror, his testimony gets tossed out of my mind immediately.
bikermama, how would a shot to the groin be any less lethal?
bikermama, your comments are so typical of those hiding behind a veil of anonymity to post your spurious comments.
Det_Munch said: Counselor Brooks is so typical of a public defender. He has spent the last 11 years defending the dregs of society, 99% of which belong in jail.
My response: So you know for a fact that all of his clients are/were dregs of society? This is what is wrong with this whole thing...ASSUMPTIONS! People are entitled to a defense before they are determined guilty or innocent, but we the people are losing our rights in the name of "Law Enforcement" We need to be proactive in enforcing our rights. Have you never made a mistake? Do you think the cops have the right to shot to kill you if you make a mistake? I don't! We will all be killed eventually with that kind of mentality.
bikermama, have you never shot a firearm or taken firearms instruction?
If you had, you'd know that handgun shooters, amateurs as well as professionals like law enforcement officers, are taught to shoot center mass. The aim (no pun intended) is to stop the threat, not to wound. Because a wounded person can still fire his loaded handgun.
As to using a Taser when a person has a loaded handgun, you gotta be kidding. A loaded handgun is a lethal weapon. A Taser is a non-lethal weapon. And Taser prongs don't always contact with a subject's flesh.
Anyway I agree with Officer Mosher. As a concealed carry permit holder, a West Point grad and an Army officer, Erik Scott knew he was not supposed to carry under the influence of drugs, was not supposed to carry two loaded handguns, and knew he was supposed to comply with a law enforcement officer's demand to submit without escalating the contact.
Det_Munch:
Methinks that its easy to call out the defense attorney now, but I'll bet that you'll have no problem calling someone just like him if you or someone you love gets jammed up with the law.
And guess what pal, it can happen to anyone. Just ask his honor the judge Abbetangelo.
Comment removed by moderator. Language and name-calling.
ACSLATER;
Read hard and think. The point is SARCASTIC. I do NOT want MOSHER to be ARMED at work (as a police officer) AND (that is AND) I do not want him to be able to CARRY when he is not at work because HE IS A DANGER TO SOCIETY.
MSH1 said: bikermama, how would a shot to the groin be any less lethal?
My response: I was asked where I felt he could be shot to disable him and above was my answer, but not completely. I also said that the first 2 shots were enough to disable him also, but they continued to fire after what would have been sufficient to disable him and/or kill him.
Yakima:
The guy was wearing a single layer of thin material as a shirt.
Tasers aren't effective against people wearing parkas. A polo shirt isn't going to stop a taser probe. Especially at a range of 6 feet.
Mosher didn't even consider the taser as an option. His immediate choice was to escalate the situation to the use of deadly force. THAT is a problem.
Bikermama, you plead for people to reserve judgment while tying a noose around the neck of the police. You should consider your own counsel before condemning the police in this matter.
Daniel Jennings;
You are an rude and ignorant person.
Her opinion is worth more than yours (since yours is just to insult someone you disagree with).
But you are correct, it is good to know that when I meet Daniel Jennings in person I will not have to form an opinion of him, I already know he is a jerk.
@ Yakima: Yes I have fired a gun and no I don't have training. But on the same token, have you ever had Crisis Intervention training like Mosher bragged to have? Many many hours of training according to him. Guess he didn't pay attention in those training classes though. As a citizen, my instructions on defense would be WAY different than an officer with extensive CI training.
bikermama
Public defenders are assigned by the court for those who cannot afford counsel. Maybe my percentage figure was too high; 95% of the people they represent belong in jail, have been in jail, most are repeat offenders, and people you would not want as your neighbors. Who do you think public defenders, both state and federal, represent? Ma & Pa Kettle?? I know from first hand experience a Federal defender client list reads like a who's who of the federal prison system.
Also - Mr. Scott did make a fatal mistake. You listen to police commands and you do NOT touch any weapon you are carrying.
As far as the rest of making mistakes - sure we all make mistakes but I can safely say most of us don't make mistakes that require police pulling their weapons. If you do make THAT kind of mistake - you deserve what you get.
In this day and age almost everyone has a cell phone. It is probable that one or more of the 50-100 people standing around the scene turned on the video camera. If so, it would be worth a huge sum. Just sayin'
LVLawDog said: Bikermama, you plead for people to reserve judgment while tying a noose around the neck of the police. You should consider your own counsel before condemning the police in this matter.
My response: You are going to have to clarify your statement for me. I have no idea what you are referring to.
Daniel;
Your logic is not great either. Using your same point "Erik B. Scott, had he not drawn his firearm, would have died during an ensuing scuffle" one could argue the another way.
OFFICER MOSHER: Had he not drawn his weapon and overacted to the call and instead followed Scott to his car and confronted him there (INSTEAD OF AROUND INNOCENT BYSTANDERS), Scott would not have died in the ensuing scuffle.
What really gets me about these forums is that ANYONE who says anything against the police is a "cop hater" or is "lynching the police that are protecting us all".
Really? Do you really think that 100% of law enforcement is that insecure in their identity that they cannot accept the public criticizing actions of some of their members?
Get real. I think Plaxico Burress is a fool for shooting himself, does that make me an NFL hater? Does that mean I am prejudice against all football players?
Grow up and dig deep for a little self confidence and learn from the criticism, officers.
Det_Munch:
That is pretty severe: "95% of the people they represent belong in jail, have been in jail, most are repeat offenders, and people you would not want as your neighbors"
I wonder how many people on juries feel the same way though?
Det_Munch said:
"As far as the rest of making mistakes - sure we all make mistakes but I can safely say most of us don't make mistakes that require police pulling their weapons. If you do make THAT kind of mistake - you deserve what you get."
Ok...
Officer Mosher himself testified to the effect that he pulls his weapon on the order of hundreds of times a year. Something that worked out to at least once every other watch.
You really believe that every person that Mosher has drawn down on really deserved it?
I agree with you that most of us won't ever make the kind of mistake that warrants police drawing weapons.
I wonder if William Mosher agrees with you and I? His own words seem to indicate otherwise.
Scott walked out into an ambush and costco's loss prevention employee (what an ironic title) precipitated the human tragedy. metro and the d.a.'s recalcitrance in the face of public outcrying for an end will one day haunt them. anyone associated with the clinging to a system devoid of checks and balances is repulsive to any notion of human decency.
Mosher is a danger to the public. The fact that he is still at work after this incident tells me that there are SEVERE problems within Metro's management. Forget about whether Scott should have died. This cowboy is LOOKING for reasons to pull his gun. He does so EVERY OTHER SHIFT AT WORK. That make you feel secure? It makes me wonder what the stats are department wide.
Officers any comment? Is it typical to pull your gun that often on the job in Metro?
Everybody saw something different. Cops should have video recorders stuck to them so we don't have to go through this crap again with 100 witnesses, 100 stories.
It's a little confusing how so many people fault the victim for not complying with the orders in a timely fashion. How much time was their between the command and the shots?
It raises the question that if the commands were so clear and intelligible, why didn't all the people who heard the commands obey them and get down on the ground?
Why did they fail to comply with the officer's orders?
Think about it.
See the problem?
Be safe.
Beware GESTAPO 911.
Just don't go for your gun. I find it unbelievable that there are a large number of people who don't understand the concept of why you DO NOT disarm yourself in this type of situation or for that matter ANY type of situation with police. If you have a gun in your glove compartment, do you really think the cop wants you to go in there and get it for him?
It's no different at a traffic stop. Common sense prevails. Open your window, both hands on the steering wheel or hands on steering wheel palms facing you.
Erik Scott violated the very first rule in his encounter with police. Regardless if he was surprised or not. He should have known what to do. My Feeling is he did know, he just chose to be confrontational and make his own decisions...which ultimately led to his death.
To me, it defies logic that he put his hands anywhere near his gun without being instructed to do so.
What wendor and Det Munch said.
Isn't Betty Lou just the sweetest, most grandmotherly, adorable little lady we've ever seen? She also made the PERFECT witness. I think both of the Chrises should have put her on the stand either FIRST or LAST. What juror could possibly discount testimony from such a sweet lady?
Cognatics
Everyone didn't get down because they all knew that Officer Mosher was talking to Mr. Scott.
I wanna know why "drop it" and "get on the ground" are conflicting commands? I think if an officer had a gun pointed at me I would drop whatever was in my hand and at the same time drop myself to the ground.
Were mistakes made? Yes, I believe on all sides. But does that mean the officers were criminal responsible? No I do not think so. The lesson for everyone here, if officer's have guns pointed at you, do what they say. Even if that means do the hokey pokey and turn yourself about.
Comment removed by moderator. Off topic.
If Costco did not have the "no firearms" policy, this shooting may never have occurred. Mr. Scott would have proceeded to complete his shopping, checked out, and been on his way.
However, in view of Mr. Scott's drug use and erratic behavior, he may well have killed somebody or been killed himself in some future confrontation.
LVMP 1066,
For the love of god please stop commenting that he should have been tased. Your inexperience shows when you make comments like that. I get it, you were tased as part of training, guess what so were these cops. Again you should know from your supposed training that if one of the two prongs misses, the taser has no effect. So if you tase someone that has a gun and it does not connect you're toast because tasers only have one shot before you have to reload. You obviously were just issued a taser and told to go play with it with no formal training.
If you are military, like you claim, why don't you just tase all of the enemy soldiers, that way no one gets killed. Or better yet, how about your partners on the battlefield get firearms and you get the taser to back up them up.
Oh and here are some videos of a taser not working properly...enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYoejBVuZ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYoejBVuZ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avAH49NY_...
I'm a supporter of the second amendment and CCW but who in the world carries two guns AND multiple clips of ammo while going to Costco? Were all the drugs in his system making Scott paranoid or was he planning something?
hateliears says "DROP IT requires you REACH FOR YOUR GUN! HOW CAN YOU DROP IT WITHOUT FIRST GRABBING IT?"
Sorry, but it is not logical at all, not to mention specifically AGAINST the training he received for his NV CCW, to think that "drop it" requires that you first pick up something that isn't already in your hand.
I mean if I tell you "drop the pizza" are you going to get in your car, drive to the store, buy a pizza, drive back, and drop it in front of me? Or are you going to say "I don't have a pizza"?
Erik Scott's training covered that in this situation he should keep his hands away from his weapon, lie on the ground if instructed (while keeping hands visible and out away from body), and inform police that you are a CCW holder and tell them the location(s) of your weapons WITHOUT touching them. He disregarded his training and dies for it.
As for all of those who say that the police should have given him more time to comply, the answer is simple. Erik would have had all the time he needed as long as he kept his hands AWAY from his weapon. His time ran out the moment he reached for his weapon.
reydogirl:
I agree, mistakes were made by all parties. What is troubling is that a lot of the posters are officers and REFUSE to admit that the actions of Mosher contributed (and escalated) this event. That scares me and considering my taxes pay these people, they should not scare me. They are accountable to us, the residents of Clark County.
And no, I would not "do the hokey pokey" if an officer told me to with a gun pointed at me (I also would not reach for my gun though). .
What scares me that most, is many of these officers would cite that refusal as the "reason" someone like Mosher would be justified in his shooting.
It is this blind acceptance and refusal to criticize another officer that is perpetuating this behavior.
redmage:
I have been asking this "two gun" question for a while. Why? Strange the other gun was in his pocket and there were clips of ammo in the other pocket? Isn't that what the paramedic said? Or did I hear that wrong?
lvkindaguy:
Police arranged in a "tactical L" formation.
Three officers perfectly positioned to provide cover fire from three different positions.
Contact officer IS WITHIN CLOSE ENOUGH PROXIMITY TO TOUCH THE SUSPECT.
Under these circumstances, AT LEAST one of the officers involved could have easily deployed a taser, and the OTHER TWO, who had weapons drawn and trained on the "suspect" were still in a position to employ deadly force if the taser failed to incapacitate the subject.
The officers had multiple "shots on goal" to handle this situation and instead took the "easy" way out
lvmp:
But (and correct me if I am wrong), the officers involved COULD NOT do what you suggest because it is against policy to use a taser in a situation where the suspect has a gun. I think Mosher said that.
Perhaps one of the officers posting could clarify this?
start with a headstrong shopper, erick scott, who is highly intelligent and not afraid to assert his rights and not overly eager to waiver in the face of bullying by a loss prevention manager fo the simple reason that he is not doing anything especially unusual. the loss prevention cop wannabe cannot tolerate anything short of blind obedience and is going to show scott who the boss is and calls in the heavy artillery, a.k.a., LVMPD, which is all too willing to intervene with lethal force at the drop of a hat, and the loss prevention cop wannabe knows it. and who arrives on the scene for LVMPD, a cop that has already killed a citizen in a past incident, and he is in charge of two lesser experienced cops. erick scott walks out and confronts, quite literally a death squad, becomes nervous, confused, and attempts to comply by handing over his weapon. the police take no prisoners in this town when it comes to the slightest indication that there is a deadly threat, and the rest is another sad chapter in the bloody history of LVMPD's unnecessary slaughter of its citzens. and why does it occur? because we have a system, namely, the coroner's inquest, that not only fathered this runaway child gone wild, but continues to encourage the bad behavior. many, many, many commentors reference the constitution in other story lines. but rarely have i seen mention of it in this case. but the most basic of precepts imbedded within the constitution, as a result of the well thought out design of this country's forefathers, is the notion that we must have a government whose power is subject to checks and balances. no surprise to hear this state referenced by some as the United States of Nevada. how pathetic and cowardly are those that cling to this brutal and unjust system.
hateliars, No. I most certainly would not ever assume that a police officer wanted me to disarm, no matter what orders he gave.
I went though the same NV CCW training as Erik and understand that you are NEVER to place you hand on your weapon in an encounter with police. You keep your hands visible, held out from your body, and you wait for the police to disarm you. You do not disarm yourself.
Erik wasn't shot for failing to follow orders. He was shot for grabbing his gun.
Hateliars
You are simply wrong. NO COP will yell "drop it" UNLESS the gun is already in the suspects hand. Erik disregarded a command to show his hands and get down on the ground. It was not until he reached for his gun that he was told to drop it.
You keep saying he reached for his gun AFTER being told to drop it. That is not logical nor do I believe that happened. He was never told to go grab his gun to "drop it".
"drop it" occurred AFTER he disregarded and order to show his hands and get down on the ground. And decided to grab his gun Wendor said it best. He had all the time he needed as long as he kept his hands away from his gun. He did not comply.
He was so twisted I bet he did not know which gun to drop first. He was still slaughtered. 5 in the back.
xanax has as one of its side effects: suicidal thoughts. Wonder why they have not brought this up more? Maybe because it doesn't mesh with joining costco and then filling a cart with items and going to get another cart?
Growler. I think 5 of the bullets were accidents by two officers that are young. They probably panicked. They certainly are NOT a reaction to a dangerous situation. I just thank god that they did not take out some of the crowd in their panic.
BTW, did I miss the other two officers' testimony? Can anyone tell me what day it was on?
Hateliars. You better talk to your children if that is your attitude
Simple rules for traffic stop
#1 stop, open window and turn off car (turn off radio, iPod)
#2 put BOTH hands on steering wheel and look straight ahead.
#3 be courteous and do whatever they ask you to do
#4 DO NOT retrieve ANYTHING unless asked to do so
Why the hell would you make a fast movement to your chest during a traffic stop?With your attitude you are looking for trouble.
Hateliars
Once he went for his gun, it was over. NEVER, EVER would a cop instruct you to grab your gun to put it down. He was not told to disarm. His training also tells him NEVER to disarm in police presence. They will disarm you.
I don't know if you simply can't comprehend the simplicity of this command or just refuse to.
Whatever time line you want to point out is fine. It was all in reaction to Erik disregarding a simple command to show his hands and get down on the ground.
Why didn't he just let them disarm him? He knows that is how it works. That is the procedure. He disobeyed the basic rule they teach you.
Hateliars
I hope your bias doesn't get in the way of your judgement should you get involved in a traffic stop since common sense seems to escape you.
Saying that you hope the people who support law and order get killed merely shows that you lack maturity as well as the ability to use deductive reasoning.
Good luck avoiding the 'reaper' long enough to reach maturity.
Mosher shot him 3 times. hmmm. Wonder why that comes out the 2nd time homicide comes to testify? I do not like the process and how it is a circus act. Seems like a lot of erroneous evidence too.
Anyone still think Mosher should carry a gun? Or be paid to carry a gun?
But Mosher Shot him THREE times. Isn't that what homicide just said????
Again CORRECT ME IF I AM MISTAKEN but on the FIRST day, didn't they say Scott only had TWO BULLETS in the front?
Wouldn't that mean that Mosher shot him, shot him again and then SHOT HIM IN THE BACK TOO?????
Why?
Coroner said 7 BULLETS hit Scott so there is one that missed (thank god it did not kill a bystander) so it is possible that Mosher hit him twice in the front and then MISSED.
Either way, Mosher SHOULD NOT HAVE A GUN. God, it is fortunate with all the people around that the 8th bullet did not hit someone.
I guess I know now why Homicide came back 5 days later to give this piece of information instead of at the start.
Chunky says:
Bystanders with absolutely no idea what was going on had enough sense to get down on the floor but Mr. Scott did not?
It's sad he had to die but it's even sadder that none of his family stepped in to get him off of his prescription drug habit.
Where was the family before that day? Why was someone this jacked up on prescription drugs still driving? Most prescription bottles have a half dozen warnings on them.
What Mr. Scott had to do was freeze with his hands showing and get down on the ground with his hands showing; no fast or sudden movement.
All he had to do was use slow "yes sir officer sir, I'm getting on the ground sir, see my open empty hands sir, I'm not here for any trouble sir, I have one gun in my waistband and one in my pocket sir but here's my empty open hands and I'm getting on the ground sir".
None of the testimony so far says the cops said "show us/hand us the gun".
Again, Mr. Scott created this problem and it began way before that day at Costco.
That's what Chunky thinks!
hateliar
To me it just doesn't seem logical for someone to tell me to drop something, when I don't have anything in my hands. And not sure why you need to make remarks about my IQ when I have never made any remarks about yours. Just to answer your question it's 132.
I have been trying to look at both sides of the situation & be objective. I have said that mistakes were made on both sides. All you have done is vilify the police. I think there are good officer's and bad officer's. I think anyone who reaches for a weapon or really anything when an officer has told you to get down is putting their life in danger. Does that mean Mr. Scott "deserved" to die? I think he should have known with his CCW training and military backgound what was going to happen.
Maybe hateliar you should try and look at things a bit more objective.
Hateliars
He did break the law. He was under the influence of narcotics and was carrying a gun(s). So if the cops surround him and he decides to take out his weapon...what should they do?....plead with him not to shoot them?
Hope his intention is to drop the gun and not start shooting?
There seems to be such an anti cop mentality...hostility. You would be better off living in Mayberry where Andy Taylor works instead of a metropolitan area like Las Vegas where police actually face life or death situations all the time. Some people are just not meant to live in big cities.
Chunky says:
No right minded CCW holder would go anywhere near their weapon when confronted by a cop!
There's milliseconds between life and death for a police officer. When Mr. Scott failed to get down and reach for whatever in the manner described by witnesses his fate was sealed.
Again, Mr. Scott created and could have stopped this from ever wasting our time and tax dollars.
That's what Chunky thinks!
hateliars, Let's try an experiment.
With toy guns, you point one at me and I'll reach back and grab mine from my waist. Sometimes I'll take the entire holster out and extend it to you, sometimes I'll draw and fire at you. Lets' see if YOU can accurately determine which I am doing and respond appropriately in less time than it takes me to raise my arm and fire. (Since a gun can be fired from this holster, we'll also throw in a few where I pull out the entire holster and still fire at you)
Remember you can only get ONE wrong...then you're dead.
After we finish the game you come on back and see if you can still insist that the police officers should have been able to make that split second snap judgment. And keep in mind that by ignoring CCW training and grabbing his gun Erik was already proving to be irrational.
LVMP 1066,
So according to your logic it would have been okay to shoot him if the taser failed. Why is that?
hateliars,
Not sure why you are calling me radio dispatcher. reydo actual refers to a name my son uses when referring to a star wars character. Nothing to do with the police. I can see you like to assume. So you assume Mr. Scott was going to hand over his weapon. Yes it's true it was still holstered but in that split second he reached for it and started to, as you say, hand it over, is it possible the officer thought that he was pointing the weapon at him? I think it's possible Mr. Scott was going to surrender his weapon but I wasn't there and can't tell you what I would have done if I was in the officer's situation and had a split second to decide.
Please let me know when it is appropriate for an officer to shoot? All these officer knew is that they had a call about a guy with a gun, acting erratically and possible on drugs, destroying property. Whether Mr. Scott was indeed doing that I don't know but that is what the officer's were told. Then when Mr. Scott was told to get on the ground he did not. Then Mr. Scott reached for his weapon. Many people who witnessed the whole event thought he was going to start shooting.
Is it impossible for you to admit, maybe just maybe Mr. Scott at the very least contributed to his death?
I'm not sure you can look at anything the officer's do as objective. By the way I think in the Cole case the officer's were not justified. So I can be objective and see both sides, I think that may be impossible for you.
For those wondering about the recommended behavior during a traffic stop. Apparently there are a few people who think they know the correct behavior who would benefit from watching this video, too.
It has been view over 2.5 million times.
Survive the encounter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXz...
For wendor;
I agree 100%!
I posted this a while back, but since I don't want to become a "trusted" poster, it gets removed after a while.
Ok, so if I have this correct, Mosher is telling him to drop something (the handgun), which has been verballyt recorded by 911. I am not the brightest person in the world, but, wouldn't that mean he would have to grab at it, or have it in his hands already to use the word "drop?" Example; you have an object, let's say a cell phone, holstered/secured on your belt, and your orders are to "drop it" and "get on the ground". One would have to assume that you would be forced to reach for your object, or cell phone in this case, to unsecure, or unfasten it with your hands, so that you would even be able to drop it. So for attempting to obey orders that are confusing to say the least, you get shot 5 times???
Also, have the 3 officers been drug tested? I may or may not know an employee with ***** that has been constantly suspended for excessive use of force, and cycles anabolic steroids. Still employed there. Think about it, if something happens at work to you, what's the first thing that happens. Bingo! Drug test! Work at Wal-Mart, and use Marijuana legally, and get hurt at work? Correct again! Drug test! Flip burgers and get burned....wow! Drug test!!! Shoot someone in the line of duty....wait a tick..no drug test? Oh, wait, no, there was. The man that got shot by the cops (who were not drug tested to my knowledge) don't get drug tested, but the dead man does. If that is such a big part of the trial, why on god's beautiful green earth are the cops not getting tested?
Am I missing something here...besides the security tapes?
If someone out there can drop a properly holstered HAND gun without reaching for it, touching it, grabbing at it, or turning completely upside down, I will pay you a fee to see it, and record it!
This was justified! period. So many people that have testified, have very similar stories to the point that it is obvious exactly what happened. He should never have reached for his gun if he was trying to disarm.This inappropriate action cost him his life. Also, 3 car wrecks recently?? This speaks to his worsening drug problem.How effective was he in surgery with Physicians putting stents in? Would be interesting to hear from physicians he has been working with as to what his behavior has been like??
there are a lot of coments here and I haven't the time to read all of them....the witness at 1:07 a 23 year veteran of law enforcement (homeland security) seemed a very credible witness, but this article did not mention a very telling part of his statement. He was 20 feet away from Eric to Erics left. He clearly saw the gun and that Eric had it in his right hand firmly by the grip. He also noted that it was in the holster. He also stated THAT HE COULD CLEARLY SEE THE CLIP on the holster..was very emphatic about that point and repeated it.."it was shiny"..then the court displayed a picture of the gun in the holster...
The witness paused and to me seemed a little taken aback...if what he had just said was true and I believe it was...then Eric was holding the pistol by the grip in the holster UPSIDE DOWN...only
one extra question was asked that mentioned it..I hope the jury caught it...sounds to me like he was trying to hand the gun over as other witnesses have said he was ordered to do...I don't believe this is a damning thing but a little food for thought as to what was taking place in a very very short period of time
So he has grabbed his gun and is bringing it up and you assume he is going to drop it?...you'll be dead within a year of being on the force.
You statements regarding "white trash" and " minority" suspects indicates your level of maturity. Idiotic thing to say.
If you really think Mosher said drop it so Erik would GRAB his gun and drop it..you're on another planet.
Anyone suggesting Eriks behavior in Costco toward employees was acceptable, decent or appropriate....I can only offer I feel very sorry for ANY employee of any store that has to interact with you. His family is offering up statements that Erik acted civil in the store. Are they delusional?
If cursing, belittling, miming a handgun aimed at an employees head is civil, appropriate behavior...then there isn't much left to say.
Tom,
Well, Mosher must have, because he is the one who ordered him to do it. Also, you mentioned not lasting a year on the force. How long have you been on? Any past experience(s)? I am just curious.
@TomD1228: "If you really think Mosher said drop it so Erik would GRAB his gun and drop it..you're on another planet."
I don't think Mosher said "Drop It" so that Scott would grab his gun. I don't think Mosher even knew he had given that command, because he was stressed out. It was a mistake. Heck, Mosher testified at the inquest that he never remembered saying "Drop It. It wasn't until the content of the 911 tape was played that Mosher admitted he must have said "Drop It".
Unfortunately, it appears that Erik Scott did hear Mosher say "Drop It" and attempted to comply with that unfortunate order.
As for the Costco employees, most of their testimony has been inconsistent and will fall apart during the trial when there is cross-examination.
One of the things I find curious is that Officer Stark only fired one round. Mendiola fired four and Mosher fired three. The officers didn't fire at the same time--Mosher fired before the other two.
I just wonder why Stark showed restraint as opposed to Mosher and Mendiola.
If cursing, belittling, miming a handgun aimed at an employees head is civil, appropriate behavior...then there isn't much left to say.
don't kid yourself
it happens everyday, my wife works retail and comes home shattered everyday by the a-- holes in this city
lvkindaguy:
The reason deadly force would have been acceptable AFTER a failed taser deployment is simple: procedure dictates that such an action would be acceptable if the threat were not neutralized by the taser.
Police are supposed to follow a protocol called a use of force continuum. That procedure was not followed in this case. The officers did not even consider less lethal ordnance in this case, even though they knew going into the situation that they were dealing with a non-violent situation and had both the advantages of surprise and superior force.
The officers involved in this incident had every possible advantage with perhaps the exception of an Abrams tank - AND let's not forget that Officer Mosher is an officer trained to be part of a "CIT" or Crisis Intervention Team" - yet the best that they could pull off was shooting the lone subject enough times to kill three men.
And TomD:
Please stop telling us what "every" cop would say or do in this situation. You aren't psychic or clairvoyant.
@sassy: "Would be interesting to hear from physicians he has been working with as to what his behavior has been like?"
A number of surgeons that worked with Scott have come out supporting him. You won't find the DA putting them on the stand a the inquest, but there's a strong chance we'll get to see them at the federal trial.
@BrianJ: Mosher has been with Metro for 5 years. He has 3 shootings and two kills under his belt in 5 years. Prior to working for Metro, he was a security guard at a now-defunct casino. Regardless of the outcome of this inquest and the federal trial, if Mosher is returned to the streets, Las Vegas had better up its' liability insurance.
@Summerlin
Are you saying Erik Scott never said "I'm a green beret, go read the fcuking constitution". Most witness accounts say Erik was not complying with commands. He was confrontational. Are witness statements and testimony ALL going to be the same? Of course not. The idea that their testimony will "fall apart" is assinine. You'll never see that happen. The family will sue and most likely accept money from Costco as Costco just wants this to go away.
@Newbee
Who said I was kidding myself. I fully realize their are a lot of @ssholes out there. I was just pointing out it is not appropriate....nor infrequent.
There will be no federal trial. They don't have a chance. If Costco settles, it's only to move on from bad publicity. You'll never see a cross examination.
Correction to my above post. I am agreeing with hateliars. Thought wendor felt the same, but I mis-read the post.
I dont know how you drop something without having anything in your hands.
If you have a backpack on, and someone says, drop it, how do you do so without touching it with your hands?
Of course, Mr. Scott contributed to his eventual death by throwing merchandise around, and causing an over-excitable young "loss prevention" employee to overreact, and handle the situation badly. After Mosher took over, it was definitely over-and yes, IF there were not conflicting commands, Mr. Scott should have hit the ground. Under influence of prescription drugs--yep! Was he a threat when he was walking out of Costco? Probably not---three officers with guns, ready to fire with a huge crowd of civilians in the immediate vicinity, WHO THEY HAD JUST ORDERED EVACUATED! (Why in hell evacuate the store, then let everyone mill around, including the twenty little old ladies "chosen" as witnesses so far) This proceeding is laughable---every time one of the DA's (and they are both so annoying and arrogant that you just want to smack them!)reminds one of his elderly witnesses what they've forgotten, they conveniently fill in the blanks with the answer that he's just provided. Leading questions, intimidation, etc., DA's have it all. I have had primarily good professional relationships with the police, but I have also met a few whose personality/psychological profiles defy any understanding as to why they would be accepted as police officers.
Forgot to mention--county commission meeting Oct. 5th at Government Center---if you believe that the present coroner's inquest process needs to be revised, please try to be there--it will be the main agenda item at that meeting, and it is open to the public. Let's be "interested parties--" Also, if you like, check out King County, Washington's coroner's inquest process.
This is an inquest not a trial. Mr. Scott is dead, not on trial. Is this or is this not an inquest into whether or not the police involved were justified in their actions?
I'm astounded at the amount of irrelevant hearsay that's being admitted into the dialogue and the inquest itself. Much of what has "come to light" has no bearing at all whatsoever on the officers' actions. Scott was not wanted nor was he a criminal. Furthermore he was not engaged in any criminal activity. The facts are plain: he caused a ruckus in Costco, the employees panicked, called the police and in usual fashion the whole posse rode into town loaded for bear and unloaded seven shots into one man, who was surrounded by dozens of people.
Does it really require an inquest to ask questions like: If Scott was shot in the chest and went down on the ground then whey were five shots fired into the back of his body? Or why wasn't he distracted in some way to remain behind while the store was evacuated and the entire area evacuated if he was an imminent danger? These bonehead cops are lucky they didn't accidentally shoot an innocent bystander and the Costco people are digging a big fat hole for themselves. The more their employees run their mouths the more it becomes plain that they were completely and totally responsible for the outcome of this sad affair. They'll end up getting their pants sued off in the end.
This whole thing is a farce and is being juried by all the usual wackos who comment here everyday.
Three Entities bear Civil Liablity.
1) The Doctors, had a fiduciary duty to Scott,the Public, and the Agency issuing the CWP. Liability 20%
2) Costco: Supervisor was irresponsible and negligent in his duty and unduly put Scott and the Public at harm. Liability 30%
3) First Officer: One witness has stated that "Scott Walked out of Costco like anyone else". In the face of that single most crucial evidence, any and all the evidence that he failed to obey commands etc are moot and void. He was shot based on his indiscretion inside the store, when no criminal act was committed outside the store. A violation of Civil Rights. Liablilty 50%
@Floyd
You stated "In the face of that single most crucial evidence, any and all the evidence that he failed to obey commands etc are moot and void." Even if you haven't committed a crime you should obey the commands of a police officer, especially if they are aiming a gun at you. When you pick yourself off the ground and are deemed safe then you can have the police department pay for your dry cleaning.
CCW or not, it is illegal to carry a handgun while under the influence of a narcotic. He should not of even had the weapons on his person given his medical situation. There are reasons for these types of laws. While I believe Erik was an outstanding individual, he did unfortunately contribute to his own demise.
One would have us all believe, by looking at the saintly picture they keep posting, that this guy was just your average boy next door - much like Scott Peterson - remember him - nough said.
@ Kyle Hansen / Cara McCoy
"Bullet fragments and casings were found at the scene, Calos said. The casings show that Officer William Mosher fired three times, Officer Thomas Mendiola fired four times and Officer Joseph Stark fired once."
Mosher testified that he had a .45 caliber firearm the day of the incident and that he fired it twice using a "double-tap" technique at the suspect, while Peter Calos indicated that there were a total of seven bullet cartridges found at the scene, two which were .45 caliber and five which were 9mm (Ref: Question #1290).
Please explain how Mosher fired three times from his .45 caliber firearm with only two .45 caliber cartridges being found at the scene.
Thanks
: {
This, to me, is a CRUCIAL question as it goes to Mosher's credibility as a witness. Did MOSHER fire three times or TWO?
If it is three times, where did the three bullet end up?
Would any of you fine officers agree that three bullets might be TOO many from the person facing him? Especially from an officer that is SO observant that he noticed his "bloodshot eyes" as he walked up to him? Mosher has good eyes.
Lets see, a grandmotherly type who works giving out food samples, knows what a "shooting" position is???? Yeah, right! If you take a better look at the holster, Scott couldn't shoot, there was no way to pull the trigger!!! AND not one witness said he reached into his pocket!
There is a need to work on other techniques - negotiation - other ways of disarming - there was not a need to shoot into the "body mass" that is with a deliberate need to kill.