Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Bill Scott, center, father of Erik Scott, speaks to reporters after a coroner’s inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Tuesday, September 28, 2010. With Bill Scott are his wife Linda and attorney Ross Goodman. The jury found that the shooting of Erik Scott was justified.
By Kyle B. Hansen (contact) 
, Dave Toplikar (contact)
Published Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010 | 10:32 a.m.
Updated Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010 | 6:11 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
5:29 p.m. (Updated at 5:42 p.m.)
A coroner’s jury has ruled the police shooting of Erik Scott was justified.
The jury of seven announced the unanimous decision at 5:29 p.m. after deliberating for about an hour and a half.
Scott was fatally shot by Metro officers William Mosher, Thomas Mendiola and Joshua Stark outside the Summerlin Costco store July 10.
Jurors were instructed to determine whether the shooting was justifiable, excusable or criminal. Coroner’s juries do not have to be unanimous in reaching their verdict.
Metro Police announced minutes after the verdict was read that Sheriff Doug Gillespie will meet with the news media at 10 a.m. Wednesday to discuss the Costco shooting and the inquest process.
4:59 p.m.
Jurors have reached a verdict in the Erik Scott coroner's inquest. It was expected to be read at 5:20 p.m.
4:08 p.m.
Three jurors, two women and a man, were picked at random to be the alternates and were dismissed as deliberations began. One of those women had consistently asked many questions during the inquest.
There were four men and three women who were selected for the jury. They began deliberations about 3:30 p.m. Jurors will decide whether the shooting was justified, criminal or excusable.
In earlier testimony, Metro Police Detective Barry Jensen said when he interviewed Scott's girlfriend, he asked if Scott was a Green Beret. She told him he had done some stuff "they don't talk about."
Jensen said he checked out Scott's DD-214 separation papers from the military.
"We found he had no special forces training and wasn't a Green Beret," Jensen said. Jensen said they found Scott was honorably discharged in 1996.
3:34 p.m. (Updated at 3:42 p.m.)
Clark County Coroner Mike Murphy testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Tuesday, September 28, 2010. Murphy was the last person to testify at the inquest.
Witness testimony for the inquest has ended and the jury of seven has begun deliberations.
More than 1,500 questions were submitted to witnesses over nearly six days of testimony.
Coroner Michael Murphy testified that he met with Erik Scott's family and explained the inquest process to them.
Murphy said the family was told more than once how to provide the names of witnesses to bring to the inquest, but had not done so.
3:30 p.m.
The district attorney’s office played more of the recording of police radio traffic for the jury.
Jensen also showed a diagram of the shooting that Scott’s girlfriend, Samantha Sterner, helped draw.
Jensen, who oversaw the collection of witness testimony, said Metro sent out 113 letters to Costco members who were at the store and got more than 70 responses. He said he also asked the Las Vegas Review-Journal for a list of witnesses interviewed, but didn't receive one.
An interested party asked Jensen why officers would have their guns drawn before they even saw Scott.
“You don’t want to be in a gun-draw contest with somebody,” Jensen said.
He also said the officers had little time to react.
“This situation unfolded, due to Erik Scott’s actions, quickly,” Jensen said.
Officer Mosher fired two shots, one of which hit Scott in the thigh and the other hit him in the chest, Jensen said. That may dicate that Mosher was raising the gun when he fired the first shot, Jensen said.
The bullet that hit Scott’s thigh also struck the Ruger gun that was in his pocket, Jensen said.
The bullets from the other two officers were the same caliber, so Jensen said he couldn't tell where those officers’ shots landed. Mendiola fired four shots and Stark fired once, Jensen said.
The gun was damaged enough that it couldn't function when tested, Jensen said.
The district attorney’s officer has called Coroner Michael Murphy to the stand to testify.
2:37 p.m.
Metro Police Detective Barry Jensen testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Tuesday, September 28, 2010.
Erik Scott didn't have a permit to carry the gun that was in his pocket when he was shot, a Metro detective testified.
Detective Barry Jensen answered a question that his partner, who testified Monday, could not.
Scott carried a Ruger .380 semi-automatic handgun and a .45-caliber Kimber single action pistol. The Kimber was found in its holster not far from where Scott’s body landed after he was shot. The Ruger was found in Scott’s clothing as he was being taken to the hospital.
Scott had a concealed carry permit and seven gun registrations in is wallet, but the permit didn't include the Ruger.
“That’s a felony crime in Nevada,” Jensen said.
The permit did list a .380 Kel Tec, which is similar.
2:22 p.m.
Metro announced that Sheriff Doug Gillespie will hold a news conference Wednesday to discuss the inquest. He will not comment on the case today if a verdict is reached, but Metro officials said they plan to send out a news release to the media once a verdict is announced.
2:18 p.m.
After a slightly longer-than-expected lunch break, the coroner’s inquest has resumed.
Detective Barry Jensen, who is expected to be the final witness of the inquest, has taken the stand. The judge again said he expected the inquest to end today.
1:22 p.m.
Justice of the Peace Tony Abbatangelo indicated that the Erik Scott coroner's inquest, now in its sixth day, might be handed over to the jury this afternoon.
Detective Barry Jensen is expected to be the final witness to testify.
After Metro Officer Thomas Mendiola finished his testimony, Abbatangelo said there would be a 45-minute lunch break.
The judge looked at the clock and indicated he wanted to give the jury "time to deliberate" this afternoon.
1:12 p.m.
Metro Police Officer Thomas Mendiola testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center on Sept. 28, 2010. Scott was shot and killed by Metro officers at the Summerlin Costco store July 10.
Thomas Mendiola, the third officer who shot Erik Scott outside the Summerlin Costco, also testified today that he thought people were in danger before he fired.
Mendiola heard the call come from Costco and asked to be sent to the scene since he knew he was the closest officer to the store.
He was told not to use his lights or sirens on the way so he wouldn't spook anyone or make the situation worse, he said.
Mendiola was the first to arrive. His sergeant told him over the radio to stay outside the store and instruct employees to begin an evacuation.
He had been told that Scott had a gun, was acting erratically, throwing things off shelves and may have been on drugs. He was also told that Scott may have been a Green Beret.
While Mendiola was working with store employees, Officer William Mosher arrived and went to the store exit. Mendiola stayed near the entrance, he said.
People were coming out of the store, but it was orderly and there was no running or yelling, Mendiola said.
Officer Joshua Stark then came up and stayed with Mendiola at the entrance, he said.
An employee with access to store surveillance told Mendiola that Scott was in the center of the store, but shortly after he heard Mosher giving orders to someone, Mendiola said.
Mosher yelled, “Hands, let me see your hand,” Mendiola said.
But Scott, who matched the description they were given from Costco, reached both hands under his shirt and pulled out a gun, which Scott pointed directly at Mosher, he said.
"I immediately went to center mass, took aim and discharged my weapon," Mendiola said.
Scott was a threat, Mendiola said. "I felt that my fellow officer was in immediate and imminent danger.”
Mendiola said he remembered shooting three times, but was later told he fired four times.
“I just fired until I felt that the suspect wasn't a threat. I perceived him as a threat every time I fired,” he said.
Asked why he didn't try to shoot the gun out of his hand, Mendiola said his "training was to shoot at center mass, sir."
Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent asked Mendiola would have done anything differently in retrospect.
“Absolutely not,” Mendiola said. “We don’t pick what’s going to happen, we react to the situation and that’s what the situation presented at that time.”
An interested party asked what Mendiola thought when he found out Scott’s gun was in a holster the whole time.
“It was still a threat whether it was holstered or not. I did what I had to do,” Mendiola said.
Interested parties have submitted more than 1,400 questions during the six days of testimony. Not all have been asked of witnesses; Judge Tony Abbatangelo asks the questions unless they are not appropriate or have already been answered.
Bill Scott, father of Erik Scott, listens to testimony during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Tuesday, September 28, 2010.
12:10 p.m.
The inquest has returned from a short break. Officer Thomas Mendiola, the third officer who shot Scott, is taking the stand.
12:08 p.m.
Assistant District Attorney Chris Owens asked Stark more about why he didn’t use a Taser.
Stark said Tasers don't always work properly and are only used when a suspect doesn't present deadly force.
“So when somebody presence a gun, you have to use a gun because they present an imminent threat of death,” Stark said.
He said if he had used a Taser, he could have gotten in trouble with his supervisors and Metro's Use of Force Board.
Officers also carry a baton, pepper spray and can use their hands as non-deadly weapons, Stark said.
He said a Taser might be used if a subject was fighting with an officer with his hands, or if the subject put a knife to his own throat.
Metro Police Officer Joshua Stark gestures toward the jury as he testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center on Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010. Stark was one of three officers who shot Scott.
11:55 a.m.
Joshua Stark, a Metro Police officer who fired at Scott, testified he felt people were in “threat of imminent death” from Scott before he was shot.
Stark was on a lunch break when he heard a call from Costco over the police radio, he assigned himself to the call and went to the Costco store, which he is familiar with from shopping there, as well as responding to other calls, he said.
He heard over the radio that a man was in the store throwing merchandise and acting erratically, he said. They were told Scott might be under the influence of drugs and had a gun.
When he arrived at the store Officer William Mosher was by the store's exit and Officer Thomas Mendiola was near the entrance.
Stark said he thought Scott was refusing to come out of the store and that the officers would finish evacuating customers and then go into the store to confront Scott.
Stark went to Mendiola for an update and was near the store's entrance when he heard Mosher giving loud commands to someone else, he said.
Mosher’s orders included the word “ground,” but Stark said he didn't understand the exact commands. “The suspect is not complying at all,” he said.
Scott’s arm then reached behind him, exactly to where Costco security had told the officers Scott had a gun, Stark said. Scott struggled to get something out before bringing his hand forward and pointing it at Mosher, Stark testified.
“He pulls out the gun and it comes forward,” Stark said, then shots were fired.
“I wasn’t sure who had been shot, I just knew shots had been fired,” Stark said, explaining that he was focused on Scott’s hands.
"I fired my handgun because I thought my partner Officer Mosher and everybody behind him was in the threat of imminent death," he said.
Stark fired once, then said he stopped to reassess and noticed that Scott had dropped the gun and was starting to fall, “so he was no longer a threat” and Stark didn't fire again, he said.
He continued to keep his gun aimed at Scott while Mosher handcuffed him, he said.
He then noticed the gun laying 5 or 6 feet away from Scott’s feet, in its holster, Stark said.
Asked why he didn't use his Taser, Stark said, “Deadly force is always met with deadly force.”
After other officers arrived, Stark was put into a patrol car so he couldn't talk to anyone about what happened and then met with homicide detectives, he said.
Stark said he didn't know Scott’s gun was in the holster when he shot, but even if he had, he knows it is possible to shoot through a holster, especially a soft one.
He also said every other concealed weapon permit holder he has dealt with has put his hands up in the air when confronted by officers.
Stark said he knew medical officials were staged nearby at the time of the shooting, so he helped clear the crowd to get them to Scott rather than trying to help Scott himself. He isn't trained to give medical help, he said.
Judge Tony Abbatangelo is still asking Stark questions submitted by interested parties.
11:08 a.m.
Metro Police Officer Dustin Bundy testifies during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center on Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010.
Metro Police Officer Dustin Bundy testified he was at Costco and heard the shooting, but didn't see what happened because he was behind a pillar.
Bundy, who has been with the department for less than a year and half, responded to a call he heard on the radio of a man with a gun inside the store, he said.
Over the radio, the officers were told the man was acting erratically, had a gun and was throwing merchandise, he said.
When he arrived he saw another police officer near the door, but Bundy was helping to move the crowd of people away from the building when he heard someone yell “gun.”
He then heard three or four gunshots within a second, Bundy said, but he never saw a gun or saw Scott because of his location.
He said into his radio that shots had been fired, then heard Officer William Mosher say the same thing.
When Bundy came around the pillar, he saw Scott lying face-down on the ground with three officers with their guns “drawn down” on Scott, he said.
He also aimed his shotgun on Scott, but when he saw Scott wasn't moving he began to look around and noticed a handgun in its holster about 3 feet from Scott’s feet, Bundy said. He said he didn't see a cell phone on the ground.
He saw Mosher handcuff Scott, then he moved his attention to a woman who had become hysterical and was yelling, he said.
Bundy then helped to move the crowd back and put up crime scene tape, he said. He didn't see Scott again.
When asked why he didn't give CPR or try to save Scott, Bundy said he is not trained in emergency medicine or CPR.
Justice of the Peace Tony Abbatangelo speaks to the jury during a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Tuesday, September 28, 2010. Scott was shot and killed by Metro Police Officers at the Summerlin Costco store on July 10.
Officer Josh Stark, one of the three officers who fired at Scott is now taking the stand.
10:39 a.m.
Dustin Bundy, another Metro Police officer present during the shooting, is the first witness of the day.
10:32 a.m.
The coroner’s inquest into the shooting death of Erik Scott resumed this morning at the Regional Justice Center in downtown Las Vegas.
This is the sixth day of testimony in the inquest, which originally was scheduled to last three days. The proceedings were to begin at 10 a.m., but jurors entered the courtroom at about 10:30 a.m.
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 Stark and Thomas Mendiola, are expected on the stand today.
Sun archives
- Detective: Erik Scott had pain medicines from several doctors (9-27-10)
- Day 5 blog: Homicide detective returns to witness stand with more evidence (9-27-10)
- 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)
Perhaps the LV Sun reporter can tell us about whether there is a typo or not.
Where their 8 bullets fired (and 7 bullets in Scott) and did homicide say Mosher fired 3 times?
Hi BrianJ, police say Officer William Mosher fired twice, Officer Thomas Mendiola fired four times and Officer Joshua Stark fired once.
thanks Tim;
I see the typo in the Day 5 was corrected.
Here's what I find troubling with the testimony with the civilians are some what contradicting of each other but yet no officer has gave any contradictory testimony as if they have all been coached, If I were on the jury that is a question I would ask if all the officers involved got together with the DA And job briefed the testimony ie. coached.
I mean it just stands to reason that there is such a disparity, Why would group have controversy and the other is perfect.
casinokid, you need to listen closer to the testimony. There are as many discrepancies in eyewitness testimony from the officers as would be expected. Not all of them agree on how many shots they heard fired, the commands they heard, etc.
If you're asking why the offices don't have HUGE discrepancies, like some civilians saying that Scott was shot in the back with no delay between the first command and the first shot - that is primarily because officers often know what they are looking for and where to look and are, in general, better trained more reliable witnesses than the general public.
Comment removed by moderator. Off-topic.
I have visited your fair city on multiple occasions (1 to 2 x year for 10 + years)for business events.
I find a few things concerning:
1. Your police are not trained in first aid or CPR?
2. This inquest process is a bit unusual.
3. When was the last LV Police officer convicted in a wrongful shooting?
While I don't think many conventioneers fly in with concealed weapons, this case is a bit concerning to people outside of LV.
The excessive number of shots, shots in the back, and failure to render first aid seem unusual for broad daylight, in a Costco, with only one suspect.
Being professionally trained and around emergent situations for the past 7 years, I can say that people's stories don't match up often. Because when events like this happen, they happen so fast, people aren't going to know every detail of what truly happened. Adrenaline kicks in. It would be pretty impossible for everyone to be on the same exact page. Not everyone was standing in the same exact spot. Not everyone heard the same thing, saw the same thing, etc. Also perception is different. So like wendor says, officers are better trained to be more reliable witnesses. I agree.
casinokid:
I am finding the civilian testimony is not that contradictory. Except from the lawyer guy who had the time to walk to his car and then go back to check out what was going on; his testimony is full of baloney (this all went down in less than 2 minutes and guy doesn't look like he could walk fast enough to see anything that was useful). Please go back and read the civilian testimony again. There are some discrepancies but most are saying basically the same thing. Some were not close enough to see whether Scott was shot in the back or not.
Comment removed by moderator. personal attack
"Mosher's orders included the word "ground," but Stark said he didn't understand the exact commands. "The suspect is not complying at all," he said."
Unfortunately, it looks like Scott may have been complying with Mosher's order to "Drop It" that Stark didn't hear and Mosher denied given, yet can be heard on the 911 tape.
I thought Stark did a good job on the stand. A couple of things caught my interest.
First, I thought it was interesting that Stark said he opened fire because he heard Mosher fire, not because of Scott's actions per say.
I also found it interesting that Stark fired one round into Scott's torso and said he "re-assessed" and didn't fire anymore rounds because the threat had been contained. Yet Mosher fired three rounds and Mendiola fired four rounds, at least one of which entered Scott's body through the underside of his buttocks.
However, I can understand why Stark would have opened fire if he didn't hear Mosher order Scott to "Drop It" and then turned around to see Scott reach for his weapon and heard a gunshot.
I really wonder if Erik Scott had run into Officer Stark first instead of Officer Mosher whether would we have had the same outcome?
Stark said, "If he had used a Taser, he could have gotten in trouble with his supervisors and Metro's Use of Force Board."
Trouble? You could have been the hero and saved a guys' life. You're worried about being in trouble? Guess what ? you now are.
That's not true...
The only "threat of imminent death" was from Metro Officers ESCALATING the situation WAAAY beyond what it was.
Look at it another way. If he came in with a taser and Erik Scott decided to shoot, and did kill someone because the taser did not contain him.....
What do you think his supervisors would say?....good try?
It goes both ways...hindsight is 20/20
They are not allowed to USE tasers. If you don't like that, the rules would need to change. You CANNOT fault these three for the rules they are told to obey. Scott had a gun, THAT MEANS NONE OF THE THREE COULD USE A TASER. Complain about the rule, but do not keep saying these three "should have used a taser" because that is not the patrolman's decision.
SummerlinCC:
Mosher DID NOT fire three shots. I saw that too. The SUN corrected their typo from yesterday. He fired twice like he testified.
I made a mistake I was going on what was reported in the paper I was not privy of all the testimony I guess if you get all the info from one source your gonna make a mistake and for that I will apologize.
@BrianJ, so we've got Mosher at two rounds, Stark at one round and Mendiola at FOUR for the 7 total?
Agreed with previous comments, Officer Stark seems very level headed. Why are the DA's leading these witnesses? Isn't this a fact finding exercise?
SummerlinCC:
Yes. I asked a clarification from the SUN (see top) and they confirmed and went back and changed it from last evening (where they had the homocide detective saying Mosher shot 3 times).
Then where the heck did Al Bundy come in? To Det Munch, the only way a gun can be fired from a holster, is if it is a revolving holster. The position of Scott's holster is not where one keeps a gun with a revolving holster. The holster that was presented is defintely NOT that type of holster. SO... Muchies How do you like me now?
I still think Mosher should have his gun taken away. Stark is level headed but I wish he didn't say that he shot because he heard a gunshot (makes me nervous and some of you old timers better get those cars tuned up so they don't backfire when you are pulled over). Will be interesting to hear the third officer's justification for his 4 rounds. He has had a long time to think about it....
Alex2, you obviously do not have or use handguns. As I have offered previously, I will be happy to demonstrate, out at the range, that a handgun can be fired while in that exact model of holster. But since the demonstration will damage the holster, you will have to be willing to pay for the replacement.
Does it seem to anyone else that the Chrises aren't going to be too pleased with Officer Mendiola's testimony?
Another thing that kind of bugs me is that Stark couldn't understand Mosher's commands. Anyone think Erik Scott could understand them? Stark was part of the confrontation team so he would be very alert. But he said he heard something about Ground (could be a ground beef recall) and then he heard shots so he joined in (sorry Stark I will not be joining you and Dick Cheney on your next hunting trip).
Officer Moser should have his guns taken away and be reassigned to Safety Patrol.
@casino kid, start with the basic incontravertible premise that the coroner's inquest is constitutionally repugnant by virtue of its one-sided presentation. there is no meaningfull system of checks or balances to address the daily overwhelming power of a LVMPD officer that either does not comprehend the limitations of his or her authority or simply abuses his or her power. and i am not concerned that these government authorized agents are LVMPD officers, but rather, that they are humans prone to abusive behavior. by definition every human is imperfect. the framer's of the constitution arrived in this country by virtue of their desire to detach themselves from the english monarchy's unilateral rule and made every effort to ensure that in the year 2010, the law of the land would be more in keeping with the notion that the government of people would always have a meaningful right to redress government abuses. instead we are witnessing a longstanding institution that does not allow meaningful redress as to the most eggregious of government abuses, the taking of a civilian life. in a nutshell CASINOKID, as long as the coroner's inquest is the forum for redress, there shall be no meaningful redress. instead the message is clear to every LVMPD officer the day he or she first pins on the badge, "do not worry, if you kill a civilian, you will testify to the "imminent danger" that existed at the time, you were afraid for your life and possibly the life of another, end of story."
CASINOKID, go back and look at the testimony of the officers in every coroner's inquest and you will see that they are all reading from the same script. Do LVMPD officers actually confront deadly threats, and fear for their lives and the lives of others?....the sad obvious answer is yes, and far too often. we owe to THEM a great acknowledgement. but that is not the issue here. the issue is whether there are particular humans that pin a badge upon their chests and simply should not be allowed to do so. they will never be weeded out of the force so long as the coroner's inquest remains in place. in my opinion Mosher absolutely drags down into a putrid abyss the dignity of every LVMPD officer's badge so long as he is allowed to wear his. erik scott precious moments upon this earth were cut dramatically by ignorant human behavior the worst of which is driven by obstinate fools that maintain this wretched so called inquiry called the coroner's inquest.
I don't think Mosher should be allowed on Safety patrol, he would probably club some kid who prematurely entered the crosswalk and did not jump right back on the curb when Mosher yelled "Stop, Freeze, NO back on the curb, back on the curb"
Eric Scott never intended to use his weapon against the police during this incident @Costco.
You can use conjecture, make stuff up, speculate, theorize, posit, deduce, infer, or lie, but the TRUTH IS...
He was going to turn his weapon over to Mosher.
Still, by the time it came down to what the situation had DEVOLVED INTO, I can see how this will be a justified shoot.
DOES NOT make it right, however.
Good point on Officer Mosher not being assigned to Safety Patrol. That's exactly what would have happened. Maybe we can feed him another two dozen doughnuts and hope he falls asleep.
nonewz;
I completely agree with you EXCEPT for one thing. Eirk Scott was not some harmless hero. He was a criminal. He was a danger to society and it scares the heck out of me that he had two guns on him all the time.
Think about this, "he was driving around this city CONSTANTLY stoned out of his mind". In one of his accidents he WAS ADJUSTING A PACEMAKER. While driving, while stoned. I hope his company is carefully looking at any devices that he adjusted (I did not know these needed to be adjusted).
He should not have been shot, but he did contribute to the event.
Although the sequence of shots i.e. fired by Stark and Mendiola isn't known, it is clear BOTH fired upon the rear torso region of the suspect with the difference between deciding when and when not to fire differing between the two.
Stark at least exercised threat assessment prior to firing a second time, while Mendiola clearly made NO assessment between shots to justify his continued barrage of lethal force -- understand these were first time shootings for both however, it should be clear to everyone Mendiola's inability to correctly assess the use of lethal force is certainly a public safety liability -- particularly when Mendiola also indicating during his testimony that he observed people in his backdrop prior to shooting and didn't relocate his position to eliminate his threat to bystanders.
: {
Everyone fails to remember what caused this damn thing to begin with.....if Scott's erratic behavior and threatening attitude in Costco prior to the Police arriving didn't happen.....then none of this would have happened!
He was hopped up on a boatload of drugs.....as evidenced by the coroner's report. Scott made the choice to take drugs.....he made the decision to carry firearms, concealed....when he KNEW it was illegal to do so while under the influence of narcotics!!! Like it or not, Scott violated the Law!
You can argue all day long on whether or not Police should have used Tasers or Pepper Spray or whatever.....Scott shouldn't have put himself in this position!
And where is his girlfriend? The hop-head who was helping him get pills?
That's what I thought.
Look, if Erik Scott was really looking to shoot somebody, he would have had his gun out of its' holster by the time police arrived. Scott had no clue the police were even called after his interaction with the Costco employee until the order to evacuate was given and even then, he probably didn't know 100% that the evacuation was related to him.
As I listen to the testimony, it becomes clear that Scott probably figured he could easily clear things up by telling the police he had a CCW and showing the police the serial number on his weapon. Unfortunately, the police weren't approaching Scott has a CCW holder carrying a concealed weapon. They were approaching him as an erratic ED case going crazy inside the store that had been asked to leave and refused to do so.
Scott walks out, is initially shocked by the degree of the police response. It appears that Metro officers were just as surprised at seeing Scott outside the store, because they had been led to believe there was a gunman with ED refusing to leave the store. Instead, the "crazed" gunman is walking outside the store with his girlfriend next to him like, well, like he's shopping at a Costco on a Saturday.
Mosher stresses and for whatever reason thinks that Scott is a danger that needs to be stopped even though Scott doesn't have a weapon in his hand when Mosher see him. Mosher, having been told Scott has a weapon on him, issues Scott the command to "Drop It" when Scott doesn't even have a weapon in his hand.
Stark and Mendiola turn around just in time to hear Mosher order "Get on the Ground" and see Scott reach back for his weapon. Mosher opens fire. Stark and Mendiola hear Mosher open fire and open fire themselves. Having no idea that Mosher had actually ordered Scott to disarm, Stark and Mendiola perceive that Scott is a threat and when Mosher discharges his weapon, Stark and Mendiola follow suit.
At the end of the day, Costco employee Shai Lierley yelled the equivalent of fire in a crowded movie house. Scott had the unfortunate luck of running into a stress case by the name of Officer Mosher instead of other Metro officers that might have been more calm and collected. I'm still waiting to hear why Mendiola fired four rounds, but thus far I think Stark is in the clear.
gmag, you need to look up the word "conjecture".
You are knee deep in it.
Only Erik knew what was on his drug addled brain that day.
SummerlinCC - That's a joke of a recount of the story.....what a joke!
I suppose Shai and Officer Mosher forced pills down his throat too? Or pressured him to act like a fool inside the store?
Geez....no accountability for the druggie....easy to put blame on the Cops who Protect & Serve us daily.
Anyone want to assign blame for the incident?
Scott 25%
Shai 25%
Mosher 40%
Other two Officers 10%
That is how I see it. Shai got the officers primed, Mosher over reacted instead of diffusing the situation and Scott also had chances to make this not happen. 10% on the other two since we have not been told what bullet killed him so their rounds may have just been "piling on"
Sinatra:
Let's see your percentage of the blame. Not all cops protect and serve us (just like not all in congress represent us). What I find interesting is yesterday (not so much today) the officers that were posting in no way could even envision that the police held any responsibility for the escalation of this.
SummerlinCC says "it becomes clear that Scott probably figured he could easily clear things up by telling the police he had a CCW and showing the police the serial number on his weapon."
If that was his plan then he had already made a fatal mistake. His CCW training covered in detail what he should and should not do, and taking his weapon in hand FOR ANY REASON including to "show" the officers something is an action he should have know would likely result in being shot.
@Sinatra711: The Costco's employees testimony is so full of holes, you can drive a truck though it. I hate to use the word "lie" instead of "discrepancy", but hey, it's shorter word-
Lie #1: Costco Employee: I heard Erik Scott tell his gf that he was drunk.
The coroner's report finds no alcohol found in Scott's system.
Lie #2: Costco Employee: Erik Scott's eyes were bloodshot and he appeared angry.
The Costco membership photo from that day shows that Scott's eyes weren't bloodshot. And he was smiling.
Lie #3: Costco Employee: Mosher approached Scott from behind and tapped Scott on his shoulder. Employee provides a detailed description of how Scott brushed Mosher away.
Mosher denies ever touching Scott.
Lie #4: Costco Employee A: Scott appeared erratic to me because he was mumbling to himself. Costco Employee B: No, Scott wasn't mumbling at all. He appeared erratic to me because he had red marks on his chest, which indicated drug use.
Lie #5: Costco Employee: I didn't think Scott was shoplifting at all. DA: Umm, you said in an earlier statement, you thought he might have been. Try again. Employee: Oh yeah come to think of it, I thought he may have been shoplifting.
Lie #6: Costco Employee: We're a low cost wholesaler, so we don't rely on video surveillance and it's really nobody's job to make sure the video works.
These are just a few on the inconsistencies that I recall and I haven't been able to watch every Costco employee that has testified. Costco general counsel has to be sweating a little bit right now.
And the Scott's lawyer has already said that he is in contact with the girlfriend, that she was never served properly and that he has no intention of putting her on the stand in a kangaroo court proceeding where both he and the prosecution can't cross-examine. You'll have to wait for the federal trial.
BrianJ says "Anyone want to assign blame for the incident?"
Easy. Scott 100%
He knew he was carrying illegally while on drugs. He knew how he should respond when confronted by a civilian while carrying and ignored that process. He knew how he should respond when confronted by an officer while carrying and chose to ignore that as well.
Erik Scott gets 100% of the blame.
As nonewz said earlier "erik scott precious moments upon this earth were cut dramatically by ignorant human behavior..." and he was 100% correct, he just overlooked that the "ignorant human behavior: was Erik Scott's.
SummerlinCC:
Do you mean civil trial or federal trial?
You don't think the feds will get involved in this do you? Are they looking at Yant or is it just local people going over all Yant's crimes?
SummerlinCC - So the Costco employees just call in Metro to mess with people and make up stuff to get them shot?? Ludicrous.....you just showed how ridiculous your logic is by that last so-called "breakdown" of the Costco employees' testimony.
I agree with wendor.....100% Scott's fault......death by idiocy.
Wender, thanks for offering to take me out in the range, however you know what I'm saying is true. Unless it is a revolving holster, the gun can't be shot, the trigger is covered. Come on now, admit I "GOTTCHA YA"
SummerlinCC
Don't forget to add Mr Scotts name to your 'list of liars' since he snarled to the CC employee that he was a green Beret and you haven't educated us on the truth of that. [yet]
And I would give the UNLV football team a better chance of winning their conference this yr. that the Scotts winning a wrongfull death suit!
Unless you appoint yourself the judge and jury . [again]
Sorry Alex, but in this case you really do not know what you are talking about. A gun can indeed be fired from that holster. I have offered to SHOW you that this is true. If you choose instead to labor on under your false assumption, then no one else can help you.
SummerlinCC,
Do you think Mr. Scott has no culpability in any of this? If he was truely just shopping at Costco then why did the cops need to be called. I don't know about you but I shop several times a week and have never had the cops called on me.
I know as a parent it's hard to see your child at fault but as parents we do them an incrediable disservice if we think they are always 100% perfect. You have to see that Mr. Scott shares some of the blame?
Also I know if I tell one of my kids to "drop it" and they have nothing in their hands they would show me their hands and tell me they didn't have anything. I'm not sure why Mr. Scott didn't do the same thing.
So Wendor and Sinatra:
100% means that this situation ONLY could have ended with erik scott dead on the ground. You believe that there was NO other possible outcome, even if SWAT was the first one there? So, any set of circumstances that day, Scott would have been killed?
If Shai had told him to leave the property as he was now trespassing or else Shai would call the police (still Scott would have been shot).
If Mosher had actually waited for his SGT instead of rushing in?
Etc.
@wendor: Ordinarily, yes. But CCW training teaches you to take commands from the police.
You know, I know and Erik Scott knew that he was going to have to show the police his CCW permit and they were going to compare his paperwork to the individual weapon.
@Sinatra711: I agree that Scott shouldn't have been carrying a weapon while on prescription drugs. But sorry, it wasn't the prescription drugs that killed Scott. It was bullets.
For all the talk of Scott's bloodshot eyes, his photo from that day shows him without bloodshot eyes.
For all the talk of Scott appearing angry, his photo shows him smiling.
For all the talk of Scott "scaring" customers inside the store, we haven't heard from a single customer inside the store that says they were scared.
For all the talk of Scott acting erratically, we have yet to hear a consistent reason for why Costco employees thought Scott was acting erratically--only the conclusion that he was.
I don't really think that the prescription drug thing had much at all to do with this shooting other than to provide a diversion.
BrianJ - "100% means that this situation ONLY could have ended with erik scott dead on the ground."
No, I said that the responsibility for Erik's death was 100% his.
At any time a change in his own actions could have kept him alive. But the choices he made instead directly resulted in his death.
Well after 5 1/2 days of testimony and reading every single comment listed here at the Sun, a couple things stand out. Firstly, every single person with a CCW should fear for their lives when dealing with police officers in Las Vegas. I say that not to be snide but simply put Las Vegas Police operate in such fear of their lives they have no other course of action but to shoot you and deal with the cakewalk that is a Coreners Inquest here in Nevada afterward. The second amendment in this country is dead. The idea that citizens can carry guns openly or concealed by right is dead. Having a weapon on you IMMEDIATELY puts you in harms way first before any other consideration is made. We should all live in fear of our lives from those we are paying to protect us. We have allowed the mentality of "only criminals" carry guns to permiate societies consciencousness to the point the first time a CCW/Open carry gun is spotted a shoot out will ensue. Secondly this idea backup by people like TomD1229 who feel it's ok to shoot Mr Scott for no other reason then he was being a jerk! Mr Scotts jerk attitude and belligerence was good enough reason to be blown away by THREE police officers firing SEVEN rounds into the body of a man acting like a jerk and behaving belligerently!?!? Only in the Police State we currently find ourselves in. So in summary standard operating proceedure when being approached by LVMPD or any law enforcement in Nevada should be to immediately fall to the ground with your hands grasped tightly over your head at a 90 degree angle to the iffiicers otherwise your position might be interpreted as a prone shooting position. Screaming "I AM UNARMED!" and praying you don't inadvertently make a frutive movement on accident or get called a jerk by someone in the crowd. Fun place live.
SummerlinCC - "Ordinarily, yes. But CCW training teaches you to take commands from the police."
Obviously you are NOT a Nevada CCW permit holder. The training for a CCW permit in Nevada specifically covers this case (wow, how many time do I have to repeat this...) and the trainign is to keep your hands visible, move them out away from your bode, and to not move your hands towards your weapon UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
That rule takes precedence over ANYTHING the police tell you to do at the time. You will never get shot for "not touching your weapon". You get shot for being a threat and you are only a threat AFTER you reach for or grab your weapon.
People keep saying that Scott was shot for not following orders. That is not true. He was shot for being a threat. He made himself a threat when he placed his hand on his weapon. If you are ordered to get on the ground and you do not comply, the police may put you on the ground themselves, but they won't shoot you for it.
Actually ElJeffe, the proper response for a CCW holder when confronted by police is covered in very good detail in the mandatory training class you have to take to get a CCW permit in Nevada. I don't believe that anyone has ever been shot by the police in Nevada while following that procedure.
slam dunk, case closed. Junkie tweeking in cosco with two guns, one of which is unregistered to be carried. Nice.
@BrianJ: I'm sure that DOJ is closely watching this case and the Cole case very closely to evaluate whether an investigation might be warranted. Shortly after this happened, I had a brief conversation with someone at DOJ to bring their attention to the matter and I know of someone else that forwarded a packet of information. DOJ subsequently asked that individual for additional information. So it's not like DOJ has circular-filed the matter.
@pmmart: You've been wrong on so many things, I'm almost tired of responding. But what the heck. How do you know Scott told a Costco employee that he was a Green Beret? Is it on tape? Or are you just believing the testimony of the same Costco employee who testimony thus far has contradicted the testimony of Officer Mosher, shoppers in the store, the girlfriend, other Costco employees, etc. ?
If it is on tape, could you provide me a link or tell me where to find it? I've listened to the girlfriend's taped testimony and while she said Scott was in the Army, she didn't mention that he was a Green Beret. So please provide me with your source.
wendor (Charles Gladu) is the smartest person on this discussion board. I am 100% in agreement with his assessment. Thank God there are some logical people still out there in the world!
God Bless Metro!
Summerlin CC you have out done yourself today in your observances. Keep up the good work!
it is amazing 2 me how u cop haters go on and on. 100% of blame goes to Erik Scott. He showed up high and armed 2 Costco on a Saturday afternoon acting like an irritated pompous ass. how dare anyone tell the Green Beret he can't have a weapon in a private establishment! He did the exact opposite of what any common person would have done as a CCW holding Westpoint Grad with a high level medical device sales job.He reached for his gun! assume the cop was A completely overzealous idiot and had his guns a blazin' and shouted multiple conflicting commands at this high idiot. So reach for his gun? cops r trained 2 shoot when a suspect reaches 4 their gun. period. how many witnesses who just happened 2 b there that day saw him reach 4 his gun? doesn't matter what his intent was, he reached 4 it and it cost him his life. His life was beginning 2 unravel with a drug problem, 3 car accidents. if he would have opened fire and killed Costco shoppers many of u would then b asking why didn't anyone see the signs?Then it would have been the cops fault because the didn't kill him soon enough and they should have based on all the Costco employees concerns!!!
Has there been any explantion on the round that went up through his buttocks, then bowels, and lodged in his chest? That is, how did that occur?
Sassy;
What police officers do NOT seem to understand, is that someone who criticizes police is NOT A COP HATER. It is frightening at how resistant to criticism the force is.
This is still a free society and being a RESIDENT (I don't even care if you pay taxes that pay these people) gives you the divine right to criticize the process and the people in the process.
It does not make you a "cop hater". That is utterly ridiculous.
sassy - great points!
DisabledVeteran - A Cop pulled the trigger, which lead to the hammer of the gun hitting the bullet....which then fired through the barrel of the gun....through the air, hit Scott in the buttocks and then bounced around the inside of his body. That's how it occurred. It happens all the time with bullets....entry point and where the bullet ends up can be two different places.
I hope if im in a store and an idiot is walking around with a gun doing crazy crap....The police take him out quick before he kills me!! Good job police!! I dont care what century it is there is still THE LAWS OF THE JUNGLE!!! The police did exactly what they should have done...
Wender, you don't believe that anyone has been shot for obeying police orders? Why don't you talk to Yant, who shot Trevor Cole in his bathroom, while he was on his knees, wearing nothing but his underwear. Oh, I forgot, Yant saw the buldge in his underwear and thought it was was a gun. Gheez! Yant has never seen a buldge in his own underwear??? I feel sorry for him.
Lawl, my exact point was made 5 people that posted after me.
1. Police in a Police State are always correct in their behavior, anyone not agreeing to this are "cop hater" and clearly of questionable character and will probably be shot by police.
2. Erik Scott deserved to die according to the rules of engagement taught in CCW class.
3. Police act in a vacuum in Las Vegas and should never have their motives questioned by anyone at anytime. Please refer to #1.
4. In addition to #2 there is never room for error when exercising your dangerous right granted by the second amendment. Only those perfect enough to follow all orders shouted by Police Officers, 6 within a 4 second span 2 completely contradictory, need apply for a CCW. We won't even mention those crazies that Open Carry.
5. FEAR FOR YOUR LIVES! This is the first and foremost thought in all Police Officers minds.... Really it should be the first thought you as a citizen have when the lights appear in your rearview mirror, were you speeding, did someone call you in because you cut them off, did you give someone angry eyes, maybe you shouldn't have mean mouthed that guy back there, did someone tell the cops you were packing heat.... Oh my god what do you do now??? See my previous post if you want to live.
Has anyone made a copy of the questions that were not asked but read yesterday evening?
"Stark was on a lunch break when he heard a call from Costco over the police radio, he assigned himself to the call and went to the Costco store, which he is familiar with from shopping there, as well as responding to other calls, he said."
What I believe to be in his head at the time...GET SOME!!!
When there is a burglary, no cop wants the call. Man with gun acting erratic, Officer assigns himself to the call.
ElJeffe - If Scott wasn't hopped up on narcotics, he would have been able to follow the rules per CCW guidelines and been alive to tell his story today. Don't make it sound like the Cops did something rash to an "innocent" bystander....
Thank You for your hard work & service Metro!
I hope it's your door they're kicking in hateliars!
"People keep saying that Scott was shot for not following orders. That is not true. He was shot for being a threat. He made himself a threat when he placed his hand on his weapon. If you are ordered to get on the ground and you do not comply, the police may put you on the ground themselves, but they won't shoot you for it." - wendor
FACTS -- Scott never unholstered or fired his weapon, while three LVMPD individuals unholstered and fired their weapons in such a manner (barrage) which prevented them from properly updating their perceived threat between issuing lethal force in public theatre hosting numerous citizens -- one individual (Mendiola) indicted that he observed people in his positioned backdrop prior to shooting and did not relocate his position.
Based upon only these FACTS --
- Eric Scott was a perceived public safety threat to few.
- LVMPD individuals presented an actual public safety threat to many.
: {
"The Deadly Storm"
A Costco loss prevention manager that sensationalized a situation by his conjectured play by play to a 911 operator.
A Costco manager that chose to hide in the fartest reaches of the store.
An overzealous cop that should be put back on the prison extradition team in Massachusetts.
A poorly handled tragedy that is being successfully covered up by a legal process that is consistent with the horror of the event.
Civil action against Costco, Metro and all parties individually are in order for a family that continues to suffer from the incompatancies of system systemic with violence and unaccountability.
Sinatra711 - Everyone fails to remember what caused this damn thing to begin with.....if Scott's erratic behavior and threatening attitude in Costco prior to the Police arriving didn't happen.....then none of this would have happened!
WRONG - This started because COSTCO FAILED to post their entrance that NO CCW was allowed on their property!!! Costco employee "Shai" then escalated the incident because his authority was questioned.
Oops Sinatra711, guess the guy deserved what he got. See #1 and #3, Police are NEVER wrong and Police operate in a vacuum here with perfect foresight, and hindsight is for the "cop haters".
FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE!
On the brightside I'm positive that this hightend state of FEAR that Metro operates under now will cause our property values to shoot through the roof soon.... Oh My God did I say SHOOT?!?!?!? I hope no one interpretes my attitude as one deserving 7 bullets to my buttocks or my falling to the ground as a furtive movement into a prone shooters position. Or my urine soaked pants as a lethal solution designed to endanger the public. Poor Erik Scott little did he know he was just the next in line on our way to an open Police State.
MG says "WRONG - This started because COSTCO FAILED to post their entrance that NO CCW was allowed on their property!!!"
Actually it started even before that. If you want to go back to the "start" it would be because Erik Scott chose to ILLEGALLY carry two concealed weapons.
Yes, he had a CCW permit, but did not comply with the terms of that permit. (Actually violated them in two places, carrying while under the influence, and carrying a concealed weapon not listed on his registration)
The fact that Erik Scott chose to illegally carry concealed anyhow would be the start of the chain of events for that day.
@reydogirl: Culpability or mistakes? Sure, I think Scott exercised poor judgement in deciding to carry his weapon while taking prescription drugs. He may have spoken arrogantly to a Costco employee.
But that didn't cause his death and it's not Scott's responsibility to show why he should have lived. It's Metro's responsibility to show that they had no other choice other than to take Scott's life.
I try to look at the proximate cause of Scott's death, and it wasn't the fact that he took prescription drugs. Nor was Scott's arrogance or lack of arrogance the proximate cause of Scott's death.
The coroner's inquest is supposed to be a neutral fact-finding inquiry to determine if an officer's decision to shoot a suspect was justifiable. I try to stay focused on answering that question.
olddingo - I hope if im in a store and an idiot is walking around with a gun doing crazy crap....The police take him out quick before he kills me!!
You sound like an ex LVMPD officer, afraid of his own shadow.
BrianJ, One comment means you disagree.
Going on and on and on, ad nauseum means you are a hater.
I know, just like the shooting, the answer is too easy for you.
CC, really??
And as far as reading Scott's intentions, I also believe that if Scott were looking for a confrontation with police, he wouldn't have walked past them as he exited the store, leading to Mosher initiating the confrontation with Scott, not the other way around.
ELjeffe - We won't even mention those crazies that Open Carry.
The only crazy seems to be YOU, almost all cops open carry.
Right on Wendor! POW BOOM he got what he deserved! Boom! Seven bullets to his drug addled backside! Silly second amendment believer drugs are for those that need them and shooting people is better left to the professionals. Wake up folks this is a Police State and only the police and their sycophants will be right from this moment forward. BOOM! And lose that bad attitude before someone calls the attitude police Mr mean-mouth-angry-eyes.
LIVE IN FEAR! (All the Cool Kids and Cops Do)
Sinatra711, I didn't know you were a doctor, I just thought you were part of Yant's and fat Mosher's team of murderers, sorry about that. An aside to the poster who said sent Mosher back to another job in Mass., Just so you know, Mass doesn't want him, there isn't enough food for him.
Ok so it's Vegas what are the odds for-
"Justified"
"Excusable"
"Criminal"
Let's get our bets up I say and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say they find this "Excusable", just because this has gotten so much attention. Mosher still wins a cookie for his effort though.
http://cf.fox5vegas.com/vegas/sh/con_sur...
Timothy;
All I can say is that you are blinded. Perhaps it is your background or just your opinion. Life is rarely black and white, there are shades of grey to every event. To be unable to see anything but one pole is sad. That you honestly believe anyone who criticizes public officials or anything is a "hater" is fatuous, at best.
I don't think we should have been in Iraq the second time. Who do I hate? The USA? The Army? The president? That is a ridiculous outlook. Truth, I HATE wasting money on things that produce no results.
Open your mind.
hateliars, the reason they have focused on his drug use is revealed in one of your following sentences.
You say "The fact of the matter is that Mr Scott was...a law abiding citizen..."
His drug use shows that the above statement is not correct. His CCW prohibits him from carrying while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Taking morphine meant that Erik could not legally carry a weapon in Nevada. Doesn't matter whether the drugs were prescribed or not, doesn't matter why he needed them, the fact that he was taking them meant that by law he had to leave his guns at home and he chose not to.
That fact is then relevant for a jury to decide how much weight to give to witness descriptions of Erik's actions. It might seem more likely to a jury that someone who already disregarded the law and carried illegally would grab his gun when confronted by police than it would if the person were actually complying with the law in advance.
Justified 100%.
That is obvious. I think the only one who has to worry is Stark who said he shot because he heard a shot. Sad thing is, he is the only one I would ever feel comfortable if he pulled me over at night.
I love the RJ's descriptions as the two officers being "two year veterans" on the force.
wendor;
That law that you keep citing. Is that a felony in Nevada? What is the typical punishment? Trying to get a guage on the severity of the offense we are talking about here.
Any laws against recklessly discharging a firearm into a crowd? Is that an offense too?
Let me get this straight, AN EMPLOYEE who had ACCESS TO THE SURVEILANCE TAPES told Mediola, on the phone what as going on???????? I thought there were NO video tapes. Corrupt murdering cops. Costco attorneys should be shaking in their boots now. Don't worry, Mosher, just go back to eating at the trough that you are used to.
Once again wendor is the only one who can cite facts and be logical in this conversation.
ElJeffe, hateliars, BrianJ, and Alex2 refuse to see the truth.....by carrying a firearm under the influence of legal or illegal drugs is against the law! Plain and simply put.....if Scott followed the Law, he'd be alive today!
hateliars - you are an angry racist judging by your comments above. I feel sorry for you sir.....the rest of your life is going to be hell living amongst us.....and for that, I will be laughing inside, ha!
God Bless Metro! Thank You for the work that you do! Many in the community are grateful for our Police despite the anger from these people who will one day need your help.....remember that spite when you're out and about, you'll know who these people are....and do what's right.
WoooooHoooooo! Wendor for the next Sheriff! He'll have us all reaching for the sky before every encounter with Law Enforcement. We'll finally be safe from all the scofflaws out there double parking, jay walking and playing their music to loud.. What we need more of is "Law Abiding" citizens. What we need is more rules followers. What we need is some Stepford Citzens! Behave in complete and utter correctness or we'll send Officer Mosher and his merry bunch of henchmen to deal with your unsavory "Disturbing the Peace" and your weedy yard. BOOM! 7 shots to the center mass for you scofflaw. Wendor will justify your shooting due to your furtive movement toward the weeds.
LIVE IN FEAR! (or a complete state of perfection Wendor does)
I'm still laughing at those of you who claim the Costco Membership Card photo of Erik Scott makes his eyes appear clear and bright and focused! Lol, the last picture his parents will ever have of their son (alive, that is) makes him look like he's STONED OUT OF HIS MIND!!!
Didn't you guys all see the same dopey, feeling-no-pain, Jeff Spiccoli-style smile on that photo that I saw? How about the eyes half-shut and the tell-tale bags under them, and the roughed-up, more- than-three-day growth of facial hair? To me, this looks like a portrait of a man who just rolled out of bed, took a big hit off his bong, then stumbled in front of a friendly photographer;)...NOTHING like the coiffed portrait his family has been thrusting around for the past three months!
SummerlinCC,
Then if we want to stick to " The coroner's inquest is supposed to be a neutral fact-finding inquiry to determine if an officer's decision to shoot a suspect was justifiable. I try to stay focused on answering that question" then why has the family and yourself been focused on Mr. Scott being a Westpoint graduate, MBA and all the information that has been put out to the media?
I agree the process needs to be looked at. But in this situation by your own words the only things that should be looked at are what was Mr. Scott asked to do when he left the store, what Mr. Scott actually did, and what did officer's see Mr. Scott do and why did officer's shoot.
But what is relevant is what the officer's were told before confronting Mr. Scott. That information may have been correct or incorrect I don't know but we know from the 911 tape they were told he had a gun, was destroying property and may have been on drugs.
I am sure officer's respond to similar calls several times a week. Yet we don't have people shot by the police that often. For me it comes down to, Did Mr. Scott reach for his weapon, holstered or not? If he did then the officer's are justified. They have no way of knowing what Mr. Scott's intent was, to shoot or to hand it over.
BrianJ - here's the law.....not only for concealed weapons, but for anyone who has a license for a firearm...see item (c):
NRS 202.360 Ownership or possession of firearm by certain persons prohibited; penalties.
1. A person shall not own or have in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm if the person:
(a) Has been convicted of a felony in this or any other state, or in any political subdivision thereof, or of a felony in violation of the laws of the United States of America, unless the person has received a pardon and the pardon does not restrict his or her right to bear arms;
(b) Is a fugitive from justice; or
(c) Is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance.
Scott wasn't addicted to a controlled substance? Yeah right.....I guess having lethal levels of those drugs in his system meant he wasn't addicted.....
Whew another great reason to pop a cap(or 7) in his drug addled ass on top of his surly mean-mouthing of Costco employees and above all his inability to perform Cirque du Solei style movements in under 4 seconds... His unshaven and uncoiffed mane make this completely justified. We all live in a safer place now that the clearly lunatic gun wielding Costco angry eyed terrorist is off our streets in Summerlin. ;-) Good observation. Plus he tore those wrappers off. That should have been good for another 2 shots.
hateliars: NRS202.257 Possession of firearm when under influence of alcohol, controlled substance or other intoxicating substance
I think what Sinatra and wendor cannot seem to understand is that we are trying to figure out if this man should have been SHOT.
Both cite a bunch of facts that DO NOT justify shooting a person.
What is being looked at here, is whether metro responded in an appropriate manner to the situation.
I would say yes since so many people saw a gun being pulled.
Did Metro escalate the situation? I would say yes, three cowboys with LIMITED experience (obviously) should not run into a crowd ready to shoot. They also should not shoot because "somebody else did".
Do we need a police review board with public members and elected officials? Yes.
You know the ones that cops hate because they hate to have their actions questioned by ANYONE? Yes one of those review boards.
Pull your weapon, book an hour out of your schedule to answer WHY (in most cases should only take 5 minutes).
hateliars - You give Gorman High School a bad name. I hope they don't teach those values to those kids. Hate should not be encouraged in society, no matter who it's targeted at. You have shown your ignorance and true colors. Enjoy your meal at Ruth's Chris.....I have my dinner meetings at Craftsteak, what does that prove? Think you're better than me? What a joke! I hope you get a ticket on the way to the dinner! ha!
BrianJ - "I think what Sinatra and wendor cannot seem to understand is that we are trying to figure out if this man should have been SHOT.
Both cite a bunch of facts that DO NOT justify shooting a person."
FACT - After being confronted by police, Erik Scott placed his hand on his weapon and drew it from his belt.
That right there justifies him being shot. End of story.
BrianJ - Go ahead and waste taxpayers' money on review boards....for what? So you can try and second guess an Officer's decision in the heat of the moment under duress? Don't be ridiculous.....like you can dissect exactly how/what they were seeing, feeling, experiencing at the time they made their decision!
We need these officers back on the streets protecting us, not sitting in a courtroom or review board meeting.
We need officers willing to take the shot if necessary, not second guess themselves for fear of being prosecuted.
We need them to be Cops for Christ's sake!
loyal employee, BOY! have you ever been coached. Let it your child next time, and don't cry on MY shoulder!!!
thanks for the law. That is a misdemeanor isn't it?
Saving lives and rooting out the bad from the good is never a waste of money. It makes the public respect the ones that have a badge because they know they are the best and the brightest.
PART 1 - So when this first happened i was posting about how my friend which is friends with one of these officers told me what he had told them. A lot of you called me liars. Well eat it chumps. As i previously stated from day ONE(after hearing from one of these officers best friends), OFFICER MOSHER SHOT Scott who was not pointing a gun at them, then the other 2 shot him in the back. The officer i know is the one that was the most level headed of these 3 and it sux he had to be in on this situation. MOSHER is a MURDERER, plain and simple. In fact thats what i heard one of these other officers thought of him and because of Mosher he's afraid his career could be over. It's truly sad how Scott has been characterized as a drug addict, really very sad since he had a fractured back/vertabres and had to take some LEGALLY PRESCRIBED MEDICATIONS for this pain. All of you that are posting that he deserved this because he was on medication well if being on prescription medication is a reason to shoot and kill someone(they had no clue he was even on these to begin with so none of this should have even been brought up) then unfortunatly they should just round up about 80% of this city, take them out to the desert and shoot them all. Sounds stupid huh? Well just think about how stupid all of you thinking he deserved this sound. It's really sickening to know how many people think its ok to kill someone for no reason. It's like i've traveled back in time and am living in Nazi Germany. Do none of you value human life??? If not do those of us that do value life a favor and just shoot yourselves, put yourselves out of the misery that is your miserable lives. We dont need your type of thinking in the human gene pool. Were supposed to be a civilized society, a society with laws and courts to uphold those laws, with judges to decide on sentences. Not a country that allows the soldier police to be judge, jury and executioner. Thats not the country i was taught that we were and damnit its not what America is all about. Thats what Nazi Germany was all about. Im not some Liberal, im not some Conservative, i'm an individual that respects the constitution, the founding fathers, the rules and laws of the constitution, of this land. I think for myself and form my own opinions, not based off what the liberal/conservative media tells me too, but what seems to be best for society as a whole on whatever subject it is.
BrianJ - No, it's a felony....here it is:
A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.
PART 2 - Instead we have so many people that constantly attack others that have different opinions and say things like they should be shot. Im hoping oneday, you guys that only think and say what the PROPAGANDA MEDIA MACHINE tells you to think, wake up and learn to use your brains and form your own opinions that have some kind of common sense behind them. Until then just go along thinking that the police can just shoot anyone they want, whenever they want, cause you know what, oneday they will come for you. I for one will still speak up if they do come for you but before to long their may be no one left to speak up and those that are left will forever be their slaves.
I keep seeing one of the posters on these blog articles talk about how a "handgun can be fired while in that exact model of holster".
I'll give you Erik's gun; I get Mosher's gun & stance. You won't be worrying about collecting for damage to your holster - if there is any...
Bubba, thanks for retracting your statment that Mosher belongs on Safety Patrol.. What happens when he gets hungry? Good God, we don't need another Jeffery Dammer.
BrianJ - Yes. Erik Scott was guilty of:
2 misdemeanors for possesion while under the influence. (NRS 202.257)
A gross misdemeanor and a category D felony for carrying concealed outside the terms of his CCW permit. (NRS 202.350)
...and fatal stupidity for disregarding his training and drawing his weapon when confronted by law enforcement personnel. [possibly also in violation of NRS202.320, but at that point it didn't matter because deadly force was authorized to combat the threat he chose to present]
IncognitoRebel - just because drugs are prescribed doesn't mean they can't impair your judgement or become addictive....get a grip.
What's hilarious is the comments on this story have reached a point where Godwin's Law has taken effect....ha! Thanks IncognitoRebel for making Godwin's Law apply here!
I believe it is a misdemeanor. Could be wrong but it says "3. Any person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a misdemeanor."
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Lega...
Alex2 - Who is Jeffery Dammer? Was he an original worker on the Hoover Dam? LOL
BrianJ - Here's the citation from the Nevada Revised Statutes....verbatim:
NRS 202.360 Ownership or possession of firearm by certain persons prohibited; penalties.
1. A person shall not own or have in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm if the person:
(a) Has been convicted of a felony in this or any other state, or in any political subdivision thereof, or of a felony in violation of the laws of the United States of America, unless the person has received a pardon and the pardon does not restrict his or her right to bear arms;
(b) Is a fugitive from justice; or
(c) Is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance.
E A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.
IncognitoRebel says "It's really sickening to know how many people think its ok to kill someone for no reason."
I haven't seen anyone here who has said that yet. Many of us have said that are REASONS that Erik Scott deserved to be shot and killed.
The primary one being that when confronted by police officers he chose to ignore his training and instead place his hand on his weapon and draw it from his belt. The moment he placed his hand on his weapon he because "a deadly threat". The moment he started to pull his weapon out he pretty much signed his own death warrant.
In that case you keep arguing that his 100% responsibility for this is because he committed a misdemeanor?
Shoot, I hope no one jay walks in front of your house (it would be their fault that the car going 109MPH down your neighborhood street hit them?).
BrianJ - I guess you can't read.....it clearly says it's a Felony....if you can't read, not my problem. Re-read it for yourself.
That's ridiculous logic BrianJ.....not even the same argument...not even close. Now if you said....
If a car was driving 109 mph down your neighborhood street, should a cop fire at the driver to stop him from hurting others? YES!
sinatra
don't want to paste the whole thing. click the link
go to the 202.257 and read it. you are citing a different law. He already had the CCW.
Many states have been trying to escalate being drunk and in possession (legal possession) a felony. I think NY did.
Sorry Sinatra, but I don't think we can show that NRS 202.360 applies.
I suspect that it does, but until someone diagnosed him as an "addict" or showed that he illegally obtained his prescriptions it's all subjective.
Sinatra711 said:
We need these officers back on the streets protecting us, not sitting in a courtroom or review board meeting.
Fact: The ONLY people that these officers protected at Costco were THEMSELVES. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that one officer admitted to putting rounds downrange even though he KNEW that there were "friendlies" immediately beyond his intended target.
Firearms 101: Don't shoot unless you are willing to destroy your target AND ANYTHING THAT LIES BEYOND IT. Cops are taught that, by the way.
These cops are LUCKY and nothing more, that Scott's body contained their seven bullets and that one or more of them didn't catch a bystander.
There is no room for collateral damage in police use of force. ZERO. These cops were nothing less than reckless and negligent and have no place handling firearms, especially under the color of the law.
So I guess addicts don't have a tolerance level as high as the level Scott developed? He must have been a regular user.....yeah right. I think it applies.
the point is moot anyway.
He was shot (justified) because he grabbed his gun.
It is conjecture but I think Scott was a danger to society (now the NRA may take my membership away) and should not have been carrying guns.
I still do not think, it needed to get to the point of weapons being drawn (anyone's weapons).
I think the cops were justified to be ready to shoot based on the Costco call.
It was a classic SNAFU.
BrianJ - nice straw man argument there.
Because he was guilty of 2 misdemeanors, a gross misdemeanor, and a category D felony....you connect that to my saying that he deserved to be shot and magically say that the first is the reason for the second.
Not true. I said that he deserved to be shot because he drew his weapon.
All of the other things he was guilty of just go to show that he was already disregarding the law and safety in general.
Ok folks get your bets in, 5:20 they read the verdict. Vote now or forever hold your peace. IncognitoRebel good post. Sad but true your altruism is wasted on the lot that frequent this forum. Tons of people who have never broken a rule. They feel completely justified shooting people for being scofflaws and rule breakers. No one breaks a law in Nevada and survives to tell about in the near future. Sinatra has been borderline "mean-mouthing" people I pray no one shoots him. If yanks off some wrappers he taking his life into his own hands.... I wonder if anyone else thnks this is getting out of hand?
ElJeffe - see my "straw man" comment to BrianJ.
You also take a string of things that Erik Scott did and claim that we think that any one of those justified him being shot. Not true.
Erik Scott drawing his weapon after being confronted by police is why he deserved to get shot.
I liked my arguments for why he was not a good guy better.
Reckless disregard for others while constantly stoned (driving around this city).
Adjusting a medical device while stoned and driving (the cause of the accident just before the shooting).
Theft of the prescription pad..... When people kept arguing against you about him being on "prescription drugs" you never countered and said "stolen prescriptions"
sinatra711 - and godwins law also says that "such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate" in which this case is a prime example of a police state like those of nazi germany. Have you ever thought of why in our society that hitler and nazi's seem to end up in a discussion of police or our gevernment??? Maybe becuase were headed down that road, if not already there, and most of us DO NOT want to live in a country like that.
I vote Justified.
BrianJ - I didn't think it was ever sufficiently established that they were stolen prescriptions.
More importantly though, it didn't matter if they were legal or illegal drugs. Both disqualify him from legally carrying a weapon.
Justified....it's been my vote the whole time.
IncognitoRebel - take your ridiculous Godwin's Law comments elsewhere.
wendor - the horse is dead....no need to beat it.
I thought in the state database it showed a whole bunch of scripts being filled from the doctor that the girlfriend was fired from?
I figured that is why she did not want to appear, she would have to testify to her own guilt of a felony.
BrianJ - it did, but I'd say that's only enough to make it suspicious, not enough to prove it was illegal. For the purposes of this inquest they didn't need to go any further.
Now if it goes to a civil suit they probably will because if the girlfriend was illegally obtaining prescription drugs for him, that would go to he credibility.
Of course the shooting will be justified.
That's the whole problem with the coroner's inquest process. Put yourself in the panel's shoes: you're presented with the results of Metro's investigation of itself, the DA impeaches the testimony of witnesses that disagree with Metro, lead the witnesses that support Metro, you hear conflicting testimony, the focus of much of the proceeding is on evidence that would never be allowed in a real trial, the attorney for the deceased can't cross-examine witnesses to point out inconsistencies and there are no jury instructions given that would describe the meaning of negligence.
And if that isn't enough, the deceased's counsel indicates that he won't have his witnesses testify until they're in a venue where both he AND the prosecution can cross-examine witnesses.
I don't see how a panel could possibly find a shooting under such a process as "criminal". Really, it would be difficult for any officer involved shooting to be found "criminal" unless Metro investigators want the shooting to be found criminal.
So memo to Officer Laurie Bisch, you better not ever shoot someone!
Big believer in Metro being out of control, but in this case it appears justified. Maybe could have been handled a bit differently but in the end they did what they had to do.
I think the cole kid has a better chance of winning a civil case given all the illegal stuff Yant was into. I would not vote for a civil verdict in Scott's case (and I would think they will be looking for jury trial) against the city. I might be convinced against Costco but I would need to a lot of things to push me over the edge on that one (a lot of things that are improbable and probably not going to come out)
I'm shocked, shocked "Justifiable" who would have thought
Wow. Wow. Wow! I am the most cynical jaded S.O.B and I can truly say I am SHOCKED by "Justified". No way in hell is Mosher and Co justified in discharging thier weapons 7 times into this guy. Wow I wonder if all of Summerlin is going to pour into the streets and burn their neighborhoods down? "Eexcusable" at best. But justified is crazy. Head for z hills campers this just got unsafe for law abiding citizens in Las Vegas.
The result is what it should be. You can't be high on prescription drugs (more than high, this guy had lethal levels), carry a gun, point it at the police when they are telling you to put it down, and expect to live. If the police can not defend themselves against someone like this, then they can't defend themselves against anyone.
And not a damned thing was accomplished by this other that to raise the level of distrust we have for Metro and the system.
This was nothing but a complete waste of time, even IF the verdict were to be correct.
ha ha...funny to read the hater's comments.
Glad we have 3 Police Officers coming back to the streets soon!
yup, stay away from the police is the conclusion of the jury - they can kill you! Really, need to work on approaches in situations like this including negotiating skills and something less than shooting into the "mass" which will ONLY result in death.
verdict was not correct, officers were not justified in this civilian execution. We're all even MORE vulnerable to the Metro police Squad. Let's hope they never decide to turn their guns on you or your family. Yikes. Entirely predictable. What happened to free thinking, independent Nevadans? Just a bunch of sheep no wonder Harry Reid is gaining in the polls
SummerlinCC,
It's nice you consistently make me laugh. It's obvious you are in the ambulance chasing lawyer club. You theories have changed and now you say the prescriptions didn't have much to do with the shooting ? No it didn't it addresses Scotts state of mind and his capacity to understand his situation. I could care less about the he said she said about Scotts demeanor. Facts are facts and I tend to believe that Scott removed his handgun from his waistband. Personally, I think the drop it was in response to Scott grabbing his handgun. If it was done to surrender it, fine but that's not what ANY person with common sense would do. I have never heard you mention "tunnel vision" that occurs with many law enforcement officers. People perceive things differently especially under stressors. You sit and judge what the officers did and make the faithful jump they bought into the specifics of the call 100%. The basics of the call is a preview of what they might see, not a definitive assessment of what happening
You state "If Mosher had actually waited for his SGT instead of rushing in"?. But yet don't acknowledge if he didn't wait and a citizen got into trouble it would also be metro's / Mosher's fault. The police in Colorado also waited to go inside Columbine HS and we know that turned out well. You state "If Scott was looking to shoot somebody he would have had his gun out when Metro Arrived" Yes, true but if it also dawned of Scott that he now had a problem and wanted to get away from the police he would have walked out the door nonchalantly wouldn't he?
"As I listen to the testimony, it becomes clear that Scott probably figured he could easily clear things up by telling the police he had a CCW and showing the police the serial number on his weapon". What are you kidding? If that's what Scott had thought then he was more impaired then anyone thinks. Gee officer, look at my guns serial number here let me pull it out, that's PLAIN stupid.
The girlfriend was not properly served, and Goodman would not put her on in a Kangaroo court. Tell me what does Goodman have to lose? Oh that's right if she tells her story here then the civil attorneys will know in essence what shy will say it that trial. Yes, the woman who was with Scott was eagerly awaiting the Inquest and suddenly it dawns on here that she has not been served. The woman who stated the officers were "aggressive", I would think would by dying to tell her story.
SummerlinCC stop already you already look like a cheap attorney in a polyester suite. Dont make it worse on yourself.
It's really quite simple. I moved here 5 years ago and quickly realized this town is different. Learn to live with that difference and respect it, or get hurt. If Metro is more prone to deadly force, then understand that and act accordingly. If I were to be approached by a police officer I would not provoke any response from them that would endanger me. They are trying to do their job. Don't be stupid like, unfortunately, Eric Scott was.
The inquest was very informative and exhausting -- appreciate the local television stations for airing it as well as the Sun for allowing the public to voice their opinions during the process -- body-armor, don't leave home without it.
: {
Shot four times in the back after he was down...wow nice job, "officer" Mendiola, hope you can sleep well at night. It's ok, though. When the family sues you know those dumb Clark County taxpayers got you covered, bro!. Have a cold one and enjoy some paid leave on us!
I'll modify what I said earlier, one thing was accomplished. The jury verdict makes it much harder for the family to win a wrongful death lawsuit.
It seems to me that the coroner's inquest serves only to reduce the possibility of anyone ever winning a wrongful death action, thereby saving the city money.
In 200 cases they have returned a verdict of "criminal" only once!
Erik Scott had serious issues from the time he was in the Army (probably before). Serving 2 years after graduating from West Point doesn't make sense. I saw another poster say the Army was downsizing at that time. The Army is not going to downsize on their West Point graduates! Seems like this was completely justified when you read the transcripts.
Two things are clear:
1. Justified? Technically
2. Did metro HAVE to shoot him? Nope
Just remember that DA(Ducks A##) Rodgers is up for election this year, just as Tony Abballato and Gillepee too. Mosher must be living it up at his local fast food place, until they run out of food! Murderers, one and all! Just remeber, you, me or a family memeber will be next.
"The jury verdict makes it much harder for the family to win a wrongful death lawsuit."
Well duhhh. No kidding?
But like many other "justified" shootings, this will end in jury awarding damages to the family.
@lvstrip: If you believe Officer Stark's testimony there is no way Scott could have had his weapon in his hand at the time Mosher yelled "Drop It".
The 911 tapes show Mosher yelled "Drop It" before yelling "Get on the Ground". Officer Stark testifies he heard Mosher yell "Get on the Ground" and then turned his attention to Scott, at which point he saw Scott begin to reach towards his waist band and start to draw his weapon.
I didn't say anything about Mosher "waiting for his SGT instead of rushing in". Not even really sure we're you're getting that from. I said Scott was in the process of walking past the officers to his car when Mosher moved to confront him and that if Scott was looking for a confrontation with police as some have suggested, he wouldn't have been walking past them.
Also, Scott knew at some point during the stop that he would have to show his CCW permit and the police would check it against his weapon. Given that Scott was given the command to "Drop It" when he didn't have a weapon in his hand, I don't think his actions were all that strange. Mosher got stressed and gave improper orders. Scott didn't have a clue as to the severity of the situation he was walking into.
For those of you who are throwing numbers out, let me ask you this, in order for this process to be fair do a certain amount of the shootings have to be criminal? What is that magic number? Does it have to be 1 out of every 3 shootings to be considered to be fair?
Perhaps you may stop to think maybe the numbers are low because the police only shoot when they know it is justified. The image of rouge cops doing bad things is very Hollywood. Are there bad cops? Absolutely, but not at the rate which is portrayed in the media.
From the start everyone said this case was fishy and that there were tons of people who never saw a gun. Yet when the police asked for these witnesses to come forward (both through the Scott families list and the review journal's) not a single one did. Hmmmmmmmm.
As always, logic, succinctly and eloquently put.
Go Rebels
No, a certain percentage do not have to be "criminal". But when the process finds it "justified" to shoot a handcuffed prisoner in the back one has to wonder.
Summerlin CC,
The tapes do not state that "drop it" was said before "get on the ground". Quite the opposite.
Break out those wallets, fellow Clark County residents, there;s a big whopping settlement we'll be funding soon! Thanks Sheriff Dizzy. You'll understand if I vote against you next month...
Lessons learned today:
1) Don't take drugs...of any kind, as they do damage to your body. I've seen people on prescription drugs that act crazier than those on illegal drugs!
2) Follow orders from law enforcement - it's not that difficult. If you're running your mouth, acting like a maniac and interrupting their demands (something everyone should know from being a child, it's rude to interrupt people), then you'll have to accept the consequences of your actions.
This entire drama laden event could have been prevented if at least one or both of the following lessons were followed. Trying to figure out an algebra problem is more difficult than figuring out what, "Drop the gun, and get down on the ground" means. <<< Not confusing in the least. I am still trying to figure out why this is an issue for so many people.
The handcuffed suspect that was shot in the back was a murder suspect. He took off after being arrested and placed in the car. He could have stayed in there.
Here are some other facts to consider, the suspect was a teenager, if I recall correctly. The detectives that arrested him were a bit on the older side, thus the probability of winning a foot pursuit with him was not good. If that murder suspect does escape and say takes a family hostage and then kills them, because heck he's going to jail, who's fault is it> The suspects or the cops for not catching him?
Also the US Supreme court ruled you could shoot a fleeing felon if they posed a threat to the public. A murder suspect that is running would easily be considered a threat.
Sinatra711, you are glad to have the murderers come back on the streets??? Are you a gangbanger? You must be!
This inquest was a farce. I will really think twice, or thrice before scheduling or attending any meetings in LV. Honestly, I think the police in Macau receive more scrutiny.
Tell me, lvkindaguy, just what would you consider not justified? Running with your hands handcuffed behind your back is not going to help you set any speed records.
It's very simple, Metro has been given the mentality that they can do no wrong.
Maybe if settlement awards were to come directly out of their budget the brass would get the message.
botfx
So what happens if the police do not catch the handcuffed suspect? Answer that one.
All that is necessary for evil to win is for good people to do nothing. If you want to do something, if you really care and want to make our community better, here is a way to do it. Write a letter, make a phone call, and express your outrage. Send your letters to this man Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20530 phone(202)514-4609 fax:(202)514-0293 If you truly care and want to do something to get Metro under control, write to or fax Mr. Perez.
Just check out the website for the Department of Justice. How about the Minneapolis cop who is facing federal charges for beating up a kid? Yep, Attorney General. How about the deputy sheriff in Choctaw County OK who will spend 18 months in a federal prison for beating up some inmates? Yep, right again, Attorney General. How about the two police officers in Tuba City Arizona, who have been indicted for violating Civil rights of a suspect, one for beating him, and his supervisor for not stopping it? Right again, the Attorney General. How about the two New Orleans cops who are facing life in a federal prison, for you guessed it, civil rights violations. One more time, Attorney General. How about the two Natchez Mississippi police officer who were indicted for civil rights violations for beating two people who had been arrested? Yep, Attorney General again. All of these have been announced since July 29, 2010. How do you think the Attorney General found out about those cases?
If you don't believe me follow the link.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/
I knew it from the beginning. The moment he reached for his gun, police had no choice.
Wasted life. Looks like he had potential, but somewhere along the line squandered it thru poor decision making. I can understand the family is hurting, but I think they have to come to the realization that their son was out of control with drug problems and very severe paranoid tendencies. 2 guns in Costco? Was he looking for the OK Corral?
Just dumb decisions on his part. He knew better. He had the training. He knew exactly what he was supposed to do in that situation. He screwed up badly.
NEVER reach for your gun.
Tanker says "All that is necessary for evil to win is for good people to do nothing."
And fortunately for us the good people (Metro) did not "do nothing" and as a result evil (Erik Scott) did not win.
Not sure what you mean by "get Metro under control" trough, since Metro didn't actually do anything wrong. (as voice UNANIMOUSLY by a jury of the people)
Hope I Never Need Metro, So the shooters just go back to work biz as usual ?
lvkindaguy,
If two cops can't run down a handcuffed prisoner then they deserve to get fired, for starters.
Now answer my question, what does it take for you think an officer-involved shooting is criminal, or not justified?
I really do think most shootings are justified. But in this town there are often too many questionable circumstances involved and the inquest system doesn't do a thing to inspire trust in the police or the system.
When too many of the people fear the cops, then the cops might be right to fear the people. And that is not right.
EXCELLENT POST Tanker!, with the information you gave, some innocent lives will not be lost at the hands of killer cops!
@lvkindaguy. In the case you are talking about, both of the officers were fairly young. Officer Womack testified that "he was about 30-35 feet away from Lopez." Officer Cannon testified in the Inquest "that he was 4 feet away from Lopez when he dropped and that Womack was infront of him." If that was the case, they were probably close enough to apprehend him, or Womack was shooting at a fleeing suspect with his partner in the line of fire. Which is it? A shell casing from Womack weapon was found about 20 feet away from the body. Most automatic pistols eject the casing back and to the right. There was no follow-up on the difference between the testimony.
In Gardner v Tenn, the Supreme Court said that the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect was the last resort because it stopped the judicial process.
metro killers ques ca say......run,run,run,run,runaway ! We impeach Presidents for getting oral sex in the Oval office, mosher and 4 shots walk, legally maybe ?,not spiritually.
The feds will care nothing of this case. If the Scott family would be wise to settle.
Now that justice has been served can we put the cop haters to bed and return these pages to the democrats no it's the republicans fault folks?
"The handcuffed suspect that was shot in the back was a murder suspect. He took off after being arrested and placed in the car. He could have stayed in there."
Ooooo-kay.
Next up: Death for traffic tickets.
@lvkindaguy: Suggest you listen to the 911 tapes again to hear firsthand the sequence of orders. Or you can just scroll up to read the article under which you're posting to see the order in which the commands were given...
Well, it looks like Metro's trash-n-burn tactics work down in the minor leagues.
Let's see if they play as well in The Show. Next up: Federal court, and a civil rights trial.
Not a CIVIL trial, as some posters keep saying. Civil rights trials are where the perps face some serious time.
All you Metro fanboys keep high-fiving each other. Me, I'm buying a case or two of popcorn for the REAL entertainment.
Talkingman, the only "perp" who did anything wrong was Erik Scott and they can't give him "serious time" as you say because he's dead.
The Metro officers won't ever need to worry about a civil rights trial because any Federal Prosecutor will look at the case and see that there was no civil rights violation to prosecute.
Has anyone noticed that NONE of the comments (as of the time of this posting) by verified users with real names attached to user names are by those who question inquest? (Though it can be argued that my name was exposed in a previous article.)
i dislike like the process as much as anyone, but if you are looking for real change wait for a case with better facts. No county in America would have ruled that the cops acted criminally. Too many bad facts corroberated by way too many witnesses.
Hmm, two officers say Eric Scott posed a "imminent threat". What about the third that joined in the firing line?
Tanker and botfx,
The suspect had his hands in front of him and was running after being arrested. He failed to obey their commands to stop. Oh and a gun was found on the suspect prior to being arrested. Yet another case where the suspects actions dictated the officers.
I apologize about the age of the officer, I was thinking of another case where the officers were older, although at least one of the detectives in this case did not look like he would be able to catch the kid.
To answer your question botfx, I would find a shooting unjustifiable if it did not meet metro's guidelines for use of force. Fortunately all of these "controversial" cases have failed to prove they violated it.
Now answer my question what happens if the suspect gets away from the police and kills again?
wendor wrote: "Talkingman, the only "perp" who did anything wrong was Erik Scott and they can't give him "serious time" as you say because he's dead. The Metro officers won't ever need to worry about a civil rights trial because any Federal Prosecutor will look at the case and see that there was no civil rights violation to prosecute."
Aren't you the guy who was talking about how you could shoot through the holster? You would lose 100 out of 100 times to a man who already had his weapon pointed, like Mosher did. The rest of your posts are similar. You know not of what you speak.
Enjoy Federal court. It's going to get served VERY cold. Sounds like what your team did to Erik in the inquest is going to happen to them, in spades. What about Mosher's time out East? What about Lierly's little warrants problem?
I'm sure Bill Scott will spare no expense in the slow roasting, and I'm sure he's going to get plenty of volunteers to help.
The US Constitution reads that we as Americans are entitled to "A fair and speedy trial."
I'm just wondering, how was this fair trial or "inquest", when the agency investigating the incident, is also the one who may be found at fault?
Would that not be something along the lines of BP investigating itself, in BP's court, while BP picks and dismissed the witnesses, using all BP employees?
That's like a teacher asking students to grade themselves, of course the class is going to be top notch!
@wendor. If that's true, can you explain the following cases.
Just check out the website for the Department of Justice. How about the Minneapolis cop who is facing federal charges for beating up a kid? Yep, Attorney General.
How about the deputy sheriff in Choctaw County OK who will spend 18 months in a federal prison for beating up some inmates? Yep, right again, Attorney General.
How about the two police officers in Tuba City Arizona, who have been indicted for violating Civil rights of a suspect, one for beating him, and his supervisor for not stopping it? Right again, the Attorney General.
How about the two New Orleans cops who are facing life in a federal prison, for you guessed it, civil rights violations. One more time, Attorney General.
How about the two Natchez Mississippi police officer who were indicted for civil rights violations for beating two people who had been arrested? Yep, Attorney General again.
Don't like those, how about the lawsuit filed against Sheriff Joe in Phoenix for not cooperating in a civil rights investigation of hiring and promotion practices in his department. I would suggest that Metro has already popped up on the DOJ Civil Rights Division radar. If you don't believe me follow the link.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/
If in that case the suspect had managed to outrun two cops while handcuffed and killed someone then yes, that would be tragic.
But everything boils down to probabilities when you look at it, and the probability of that happening doesn't seem to be significant.
Now please give me a specific set of conditions that you would think would be an unjustified shooting. Just how blatant does it have to be for you?
Did anyone really think the cops would have conflicting stories? Sure they rehearsed it all. One cop, Stark who apparently fired one round must have had a different take on what Scott was doing, thus the one round, the I'm with YOU, my Cop buddies with this one round.
The gun never left the holster. He was told both to raise his hands, drop it, get on the ground. I suspect he got these demands from more than one cop. I further suspect he was going to be wrong no matter what he did. The chicken little cops were predispositioned because of the 911 call they received, to face off with a gun waiving and threatening lunatic but found Scott exiting along with everyone else, surprise.
Well, Metro get your checkbooks out, this one is going civil and its going to cost a pretty penny.
As for the three officers...well...you are all three UNFORGIVEN.
The measure of this execution is this, was Scott a thug? A criminal? Have we cleaned one more threat to society off our streets?
One could make the argument that the only guys intent on and actually using their weapons are walking free. This was NOT a good kill, it is as dirty as it gets and I sincerely hope it costs these officers their careers, peace of mind, and that the METRO checkbook is bankrupted.
Actually TalkingMan, if you read the posts (which you obviously didn't) I was replying to the people who were under the incorrect assumption that Erik Scott could not have posed a threat to anyone BECAUSE the gun was in the holster. I was simply correcting them and pointing out that holster or not, Erik Scott was a deadly threat when he pulled his gun because he COULD fire through the holster.
And Bill Scott isn't interested in a civil right trial, he isn't interested in getting the truth out, his actions (and Goodman's) confirm that all he is interested in is a civil lawsuit where he can make a quick buck off his son's criminal acts.
Tanker,
Did any of those cases involve a suspect who had ingested massive amounts of an opioid? Were the suspects illegally carrying two firearms? Did more than ten eye witnesses testify under oath that the suspect then removed a firearm and move it in the direction of police. No. They didn't. If they had you would have never heard of them.
Tanker, none of those cases have ANYTHING to do with what happened here. Just because a cop somewhere does something wrong does not mean that ALL cops are wrong.
Of course, by your logic because a gunman opened fire at UT today, we could say that it proves that Erik Scott was going to go on a rampage as well.
That logic doesn't work.
Tony c.. Right on point. Killer cops.
wendor wrote: "Actually TalkingMan, if you read the posts (which you obviously didn't) I was replying to the people who were under the incorrect assumption that Erik Scott could not have posed a threat to anyone BECAUSE the gun was in the holster. I was simply correcting them and pointing out that holster or not, Erik Scott was a deadly threat when he pulled his gun because he COULD fire through the holster."
Someone who has a holstered gun of the type Erik had was NOT a deadly threat, and you know it. Quit trying to sell that schlock, because no OBJECTIVE person who has any experience with firearms is buying.
wendor wrote: "And Bill Scott isn't interested in a civil right trial, he isn't interested in getting the truth out, his actions (and Goodman's) confirm that all he is interested in is a civil lawsuit where he can make a quick buck off his son's criminal acts."
You guys enjoy your little smears of Erik and Bill Scott. It should be quite telling that Bill Scott hasn't made any updates of the Memorial blog since September 20. Metro published their ENTIRE playbook over the last few days, and the testimony of their star witnesses is written in stone. The other team is warming up, and Metro can only guess at what plays they're going to run.
Talking Man, its obvious that you and many people posting on this story have very little experience regarding color of authority cases. Nothing will ever happen to these police officers. The Scotts would be smart to settle out of court.
I agree this was a horrible tragedy, and that the system is flawed. However, I would not mortgage the farm on this case.
Here's my take on this, it's very simple. He had a concealed gun, OK, they called the police. The police yelled at him to drop his gun or drop to the ground, police won't say exactly because they stick together. Erik took his gun out to DROP it, never removed from holster and the jumpy police all got trigger happy. POLICE should wait until a shot is fired or more threats are made . I know the police have a tuff job but come on, killing people sucks. Were the police wearing bullet vests? were they behind cover?
Is anyone surprised at the verdict? Nope, wasn't surprised when OJ Simpson was found not guilty either. In the words of Cheve Chase SNL..."murder is now legal in California" I was always told that a badge was not a license to kill, guess I was lied to then as well....
LVLawDog wrote: "Talking Man, its obvious that you and many people posting on this story have very little experience regarding color of authority cases. Nothing will ever happen to these police officers. The Scotts would be smart to settle out of court."
It's obvious that you have very little experience with the legal Big Leagues. Minor league T-Ball is quite different from The Real Deal.
Watch and learn.
Talking Man,
I don't need to justify my credentials to you. I'll be watching. If you are right, then hats off. The attorneys have a lot to overcome.
Chunky says:
There was no other logical conclusion to an event and individual who defied logic and direct orders from armed police officers!
That's what Chunky thinks!
By the way Talking Man, I would never characterize the Las Vegas legal community as the 'Big Leagues'.
LVLawDog - you misunderstand me.
I was classifying the Las Vegas legal community as Minor League T-Ball.
Batman wrote:
"POLICE should wait until a shot is fired"
Holy Death Count, Batman! You saying Erik Scott should have killed someone before the police fired back? You really saying that?
He trespassed onto private property with a firearm that was not allowed.
And I love the posts about how he was LEGALLY prescribed the drugs, especially from a physician who said he never treated him, and his girlfriend used to work for him. Prescription forgery, that's a crime too.
And carrying a weapon that he didn't have a CCW for. He was a felon who just hadn't been caught.
Given his past that has come to light with the ex-wives and the neighbor's dog, he was a bad guy and it was going to end badly for him sooner or later. It's just a relief to know he didn't take out anyone with him.
Summerlincc,
I may be mistaken by the Sgt. comment and I apoligize. You still did not address some of your previous comments. This is exactly my point different people hear different things, and sometimes percieve them differently. Tunnel Vision, hearing is compromised, vision etc. Officer Stark may be mistaken Mosher might be as well. Simply you have put the entire blame on Metro and not once have you even admitted Scott to be even minutely responsible.
You claim the drugs in his system play no part in this whole depressing event and to that I say BS!
You even admit in this post that Scott didnt have a clue the situation he was in, WHY. could it have been his mental state ??????.
Assuming he wanted some confrontation with the police is purely hypothetical. No one knows what was in his head and unfortunately he cannot say anything now. Scott may have known at some point he would have to produce his CCW but you know what SCOTT doesnt decide when he does that the police officer does. Scott acted completely in the wrong way when he was confronted, Scott simply could have stood still and the story would never be at this point. I was not there and you were not there. Scott had numerous choices that day, stand still, don't move, simple standing still with his hands in the air would have changed this whole story. Dont you agree?
Something bad happened, thats pretty simple to say. But putting blame on Metro is unfair. Did they act perfectly, no, Criminal not even close. Scott actions caused the scenario to unfold the way it did. All the crap about the video tape and Metro destroying evidence is a bunch of hooey. Were there problems with the video of course but metro is blamed for that too.
When this story first broke, you were slamming Metro every chance you got and now you say Stark should be ok. Why is stark ok he shot Scott too. Too many people have stated they saw a gun or saw something pulled from Scott. I am sure just as many people didnt see it, but that doesnt mean it didn't happen.
wendor,
I will give you $100 if you can draw, holster in hand with pistol inside, and pull the trigger of a handgun, your choice, with your fingers outside of the holster, faster than 3 random people, who have air soft pistols pointed at your center mass, fingers on triggers, faster than they can hit you with a pellet.
Holster can be IWB nylon, actually, make that any holster you like. You can even practice for asl long as you need. Also, the hand you use is your choice.
To recap:
Metro gunned down a man, trashed the corpse to get a "Justified" shoot, and are now threatening the girlfriend to try to keep the family quiet.
Nice little low-rent police state you guys got there. Just remember - what comes around, goes around...
johnnyanonymous wrote: "wendor, I will give you $100 if you can draw, holster in hand with pistol inside, and pull the trigger of a handgun, your choice, with your fingers outside of the holster, faster than 3 random people, who have air soft pistols pointed at your center mass, fingers on triggers, faster than they can hit you with a pellet."
Hey, wendor could do it - TWICE. Kwai Chang wendor, Master of Gun Fu...
I hope one day all of the Police bashers on this thread are in a situation where they will need Police protection.....It will be funny to watch you all cry like babies for Metro to come save you in a gunfight.
I'm grateful for the Police.....I thank God everyday I see one on the street that we have Law & Order in our city....some cities & neighborhoods in the US and the World have chaos. Summerlin is far from that. Love it here and have no issues with the outcome of this inquest.
A civil suit in this case is a waste of taxpayer's money.
I'll tell ya, you just can't beat fun at the ol' Comment Board.
If there was any question as to what is the cray-zee-est neighborhood in the Valley was before this incident, all doubts have been wiped away, both by the idiots who decided anarchy was the answer at Faith Lutheran the other night and the kinda kooky, kinda krazy non-trusted commentors to this article. Summerlin, with your herds of entitlement freaks, queens of denial, "rules are for other people" goofballs and "you're a total idiot if you don't agree with me" yay-hoos win the full-blown bat-dung crazy award hands down. Keep hiding behind your walls way up there on the hill, you big-talking-but-scared-to-death-of-people-who-aren't-just-like-us little bunnies ... and while you're at it, keep your concealed-carry @$$ outta my neighborhood.
Mabel, another Black Label ...
Sinatra711 wrote: "I hope one day all of the Police bashers on this thread are in a situation where they will need Police protection.....It will be funny to watch you all cry like babies for Metro to come save you in a gunfight."
Oh, Good Lord. Talk about a helpless ward of the Nanny State...
I'm going to put down "the trusted commenter" shibboleth once and for all.
Ask Joe the Plumber what happened to him once they got his real name. There was a very good reason the Founding Fathers wrote the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers behind the cloak of anonymity.
I have some small experience in these matters...
Hello everyone. I thought I would take a minute to try to help clarify the details regarding taking prescription medication and exercising your 2nd amendment. This should also help answer the question a couple of posts back about police officers on duty taking prescribed pain killers. Anyway, here goes...
We all remember the graphs on the first day of the inquest showing the lethal amounts of medication in Mr.Scotts system compared to that of a normal person of same size and stature? This actually is quit common for patients who have been in a pain management program for an extended period of time. What we didn't hear however was any testimony that Mr.Scott had more than his prescribed amount in his system. This is very important because the law is very clear here. The reason we never heard the DA say directly Mr. Scott was under the influence was because he wasn't according to the law.
Just to be clear... if you... Joe Citizen open carry/CCW... or Officer Jones, are prescribed 20mg oxycontin 4 times a day and as long as you are not taking more than the prescribed dosage you may carry your handgun or duty weapon without fear of prosecution. This is why in NV. there are the separate charges of DUI and DWI. I'm not taking sides here really as much as I'm trying to help the people who might think that any and all armed individuals (law enforcement included) are outlaws simply because they are in a maintenance program.
Maybe this article's previous header ought to have read; "2 Officers who Executed Eric Scott say"". When a subject has his empty hands up, as many witnesses on both sides have testified and agreed he did AFTER Officer William Mosher first shot Eric Scott, there was NO imminent threat . That threat had passed.
The shots fired by Mosher are highly debatable and speculative but the shots fired by Mendiola and Stark at a man most witnesses claim had his hands up and/or his weapon dropped are nothing short of criminal execution.
Witnesses repeatedly testified that Scott continued to be shot by police AFTER his weapon was dropped. And that established fact ought to present the ultimate decision in this case AGAINST at least two of the three Metro police officers. These three officers were grouped together. It is possible one could be justifiable while the other two not.
Dr. Alane Olson, a medical examiner at the Clark County Coroner's office, testified five of the shots entered Eric Scott's back and two entered the front of his body with one of the seven bullets entering his buttocks area, which traveled up through his bowels and lodged in his chest.
Two of the shots hit Scott's heart, Olson testified, with none of the shots being immediately lethal.
Instead of rendering medical help which may have saved Scott's life, an already subdued man, Metro police officers by their own admission left Scott medically unattended. It took ten full minutes between the time a request for EMS was made and transport to trauma begun.
The clear and imminent danger is having Sheriff Doug Gillespie remain in office. Voting Gillespie out of office will yield a degree of public safety for those in the process of surrendering to law enforcement and those innocent civilians in the immediate area of such an event.
Witnesses testify no medical assistance was rendered by Metro police officers to Scott immediately after the shooting, even after he was handcuffed. That also implies had an innocent bystander been shot no immediate medical assistance would have been rendered.
Most law enforcement officers in the nation ARE trained in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response and CPR. In fact, many non-police security guards nationwide are required to pass courses in medical assistance. All first responders ought to be trained in basic emergency medical care or even at a level of EMT-B (Emergency Medical Technician-Basic). If anything rings louder for the need of a new Sheriff this does since training comes from the top leadership.
Emergency medical care training is at the most basic form of public safety, yet Sheriff Doug Gillespie is negligent on this major training requirement for his subordinates.
If this inquest proves anything it is the sore lacking of tactical medical training of Metro police officers.
While Gillespie remains Sheriff public safety will increasingly be at risk.
I'm sooooooo happy for the officers! It was the right verdict! The Scott family lost their son when he chose drugs... These officer's, should carry their heads high and not look back. Smile... The "Scott Family," needs to go away. Going after Cosco and Metro for a "Civil Lawsuit," You will be shot down too.
@@@@@@ The Sun... You need to call me. "I do not like my name posted!" Leave me your number to call. I'm not understanding your new procedure.
Can I ask who decided that the Green Beret's were Navy. Maybe if someone said he was a Seal I would believe it. And for checking Scott DD214 to see Common sense would of said opps! wrong service.
One of many conclusions from this episode:
Las Vegas is arguably the Best Place if you are planning to consummate suicide by Cop.
A simple furtive move will get you what you wish.
Harmony in the Universe will continue as no man will be held responsible for sending you off to your creator.
A Tale of Two Officer involved Shootings:
Highly Controversial in Las Vegas: Erik Scott
Open and Shut in Los Angeles: [...]The officers stopped the car in the 1600 block of Temple Street, where the suspect exited and turned toward the officers; he was armed with an AK-47 assault rifle or similar weapon. Two officers opened fire, killing the man.[...] latimes.com
He had two guns, one of which he didn't have a CCW.
He was acting erratically.
He was on private property and asked to leave, but refused.
The police were acting in the best interest of the community.
No one else was injured because the police responded to the threat with split second accuracy.
wendor wrote: "And Bill Scott isn't interested in a civil right trial, he isn't interested in getting the truth out, his actions (and Goodman's) confirm that all he is interested in is a civil lawsuit where he can make a quick buck off his son's criminal acts."
Whoops!
Police officers found justified in Erik Scott shooting; family plans lawsuit
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep...
"The family plans to file a civil rights lawsuit alleging the officers used excessive force. Defendants will be Metro, Clark County, the sheriff's office and Costco, where the July 10 shooting took place in Summerlin."
You are wrong about shooting through a holster; you were wrong about Bill Scott filing a civil rights lawsuit.
All you have left is smearing Erik Scott, Erik's girlfriend, and Bill Scott. For shame.
This was a blatant,merciless,irrational,brutal execution by a Firing Squad. They hand cuffed him after pumping seven bullets into his body. This must clearly be a new method of subdueing a suspect before arresting him. This woman from the Coroners office said, the two shots into his chest were not lethal! No,they were not lethal, because he died of lead poisioning.
lvstrip-
A lot of interesting posts here but this line takes the cake:
"All the crap about the video tape and Metro destroying evidence is a bunch of hooey"
Really? The only evidence that can empirically and unequivocally present the actual events as they occur not only of the actual shooting, but Scott's supposed "erratic" behavior as reported by Costco employees who couldn't seem to agree on what behavior made them think he was "erratic" which caused the overreaction of the police in the first place?
To me, the fact that Metro immediately confiscated the video and buried it absolutely screams GUILTY.
liljoe31 wrote: "To me, the fact that Metro immediately confiscated the video and buried it absolutely screams GUILTY."
My understanding is that the video showed the first patrol car pulling into Costco, but the video showing the front door where Erik was killed was "corrupted".
Fascinating.
I said this in another post but, it is worth repeating here. The definition for a "CORONER'S INQUEST," per Black's Law Dictionary is: "An inquisition or examination into the causes and circumstances of any death happening by violence or under suspicious conditions, held by the coroner with the assistance of a jury."
I submit that it SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE the JURY could make ANY legitimate finding if they only hear HALF OF THE "STORY." Without the "OTHER SIDE" of the story to consider - and measure against the DA's version - this finding of "justifiable homicide" is nothing more than a ONE-SIDED agreement, by the jury, with what the officers said.
It's good our Courts of Law don't run this way. We wouldn't need Defense Attorneys, and biased convictions or absolutions would rule.
The poster comments herein, and daily LV SUN summaries of the Inquest, clearly demonstrate CONFLICTING TESTIMONY - as given by the officers, and some witnesses. So what now. Does the Inquest Judge just say: "good job, well done. Case dismissed!" How is Justice served?
For instance, Officer Thomas Mendiola testified that he heard officer William Mosher yell, "Hands, let me see your hands." BUT THAT IS NOT ALL Officer Mosher said. MENDIOLA WAS NOT LISTENING. It appears that Mendiola's apparent inexperience, and the heat of the moment, caused Mendiola to draw and fire his weapon - ONLY AFTER SCOTT WAS IN THE PROCESS of OBEYING MOSHER"S second command: "DROP YOUR WEAPON." NEXT, MOSHER immediately told SCOTT TO GET ON THE GROUND (according to HIS testimony.)
How do drop a weapon if you don't reach for it?
Officer Mosher says HE shot FIRST. But Officer Mendiola also says HE fired FIRST. Then we have Officer Stark WHO DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON - SO HE SHOT TOO. Stark says: "I WASN'T SURE who had been shot. I just knew shots had been fired." - explaining that he was focused on Scott's hands. - [NOTE: it was stated that ONE of Scotts "HANDS" was ALREADY in the AIR.] - SO, "I fired my handgun because I thought my partner officer Mosher and everybody behind him was in the threat of imminent death," he said." These contradictory stories don't match!
Testimony given says the officers were within 8-9 feet of Scott. Is that not close enough for Stark to KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON? Also, why didn't the "experienced" COP (5 years on the force - and 2-shootings previously) Mosher, tell Scott to "reach for the sky," and then, "to get on the ground?" Or did he panic too?
This is a "travesty of justice" because (1) the "other side of the story" was not heard, and (2) because there was no suggestion of "reasonable doubt" considered, or offered (per this article and poster's who attended the Inquest).
The MOB in Las Vegas should have had it so good! They would all still be in Las Vegas if only (one) their side of the story was told to a jury.
TalkingMan says: "You are wrong about shooting through a holster; you were wrong about Bill Scott filing a civil rights lawsuit."
I can't stop laughing over this. You insist that Erik could not have been a threat because his weapon could not be fired while it was still in the holster, but when I offer to prove it by demonstrating it out at the range, you just plug your ears and yell "La, La, La, I can't hear you"
And as has already been covered in the comments on a subsequent article, you managed to look real foolish over the "civil right suit" -vs- "civil suit" claim. A "civil right suit" filed by the family is just an ordinary run of the mill "civil suit" with the cause of action being an allegation of civil rights infringement. You confused it with a federal civil rights action - which is a criminal proceeding initiated by the department of justice, not by the family.
liljoe31 and talkingman, if you take off your tinfoil helmets for a moment you will see that the DVR failure on the security video was reported 2 days BEFORE Erik Scott was shot. Do your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about "buried evidence" include Metro having a time machine so that can go back and set things up two days earlier?
Chuck Archer, PLEASE go down and enroll in a Nevada CCW class. I think it will answer all of your questions on what procedure Erik Scott was already trained to follow and whether or not you should place you hand on your weapon in order to "drop it".
You can be as confused as you want and debate semantics all day....but the bottom line is that Erik Scott knew better, he training specifically covered what to do and what not to do in a situation like this and he died because he chose to IGNORE that training and do something he had been told in training would get him killed.
wendor - you're still wrong about shooting through a holster. You'd get zero shots off through the holster if your opponent was already in a shooting stance.
And wendor - I think that there's a federal grand jury in Metro's future. That'll get 'em all the criminal federal rights charges they can stand.
wendor wrote: "liljoe31 and talkingman, if you take off your tinfoil helmets for a moment you will see that the DVR failure on the security video was reported 2 days BEFORE Erik Scott was shot. Do your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about "buried evidence" include Metro having a time machine so that can go back and set things up two days earlier?"
The story said that the video showed the squad car pulling up out in the parking lot, but there was no video of the front door.
So video was working - just not in the crucial area...
And they gave the hard drive to a tech monkey before they shipped it to Seagate. Gonna look REAL BAD at the federal civil rights trial...
from wendor;
I can't stop laughing over this. You insist that Erik could not have been a threat because his weapon could not be fired while it was still in the holster, but when I offer to prove it by demonstrating it out at the range, you just plug your ears and yell "La, La, La, I can't hear you"
I have offered $100, please see my above post. I normally shoot outdoors near Jean. I don't think an indoor gun range would go for this, so outdoor looks like the only option. Just let me know. Just got a Fobus GL-2 Roto single retention paddle holster as well!
johnny and talkignman, you are actually making MY point for me. I'm responding to those who say that Erik Scott was never a threat because his weapon was in a holster and could not be fired. I'm saying that he was a threat because it could be fired.
Your posts where you want to shoot me BEFORE I can fire it from the holster backs my claim. If the gun couldn't be fired from the holster you wouldn't need to fire on me at all. The fact that you are focused on the need to fire on me would indicate that you agree that the police were correct to fire on Erik Scott.
Thanks.
wendor,
I really don't know what else to say man. You are telling me that you can shoot from a holster, and that you are, in fact, a threat that needs/should be shot. I am offering you $100 to show you that that you would be so overpowered, and the 3 people would have enough time to properly assess the situation, and shooting first would probably not be the first/only choice. You referenced that my posts back your claim, but your lack of showing us that you can shoot from outside the holster backs all of ours. But hey, let's forget about that. $100 to you if you can shoot from the holster like I said above. I'll even let you practice! That Fobus is just waiting for some use!
Johnny, what does your Fobus paddle holster have to do with anything?
We are talking about an Uncle Mike's soft nylon inside-the-pant holster the same as Erik was using. If you think you can't slide your finger inside the holster and reach the trigger then you definitely don't know what you are talking about.
You plunk down the replacement cost for the holster and I'll set up the range time to demonstrate.
wendor
Nothing really, just excited that I got it, wanted to use it when you demonstrate shooting from the holster. Also, please read my post again, I said fingers on the outside of an IWB holster of your choice. If you want to do it on the inside, with the gun properly, ALL THE WAY holstered, I will go for that too. I happen to have one that fits a kel-tec 9mm. Again, we shoot near Jean, in the desert. Just let me know.
Ah, but johnny I never said "fingers outside the holster" nor did I clarify whether or not the gun was "all the way" in the holster. The police outside of Costco had no way to see if either of those was true. You can not say one way or the other whether Erik Scott's fingers were inside or outside the holster before he was shot.
Folks have said, "the police had no need to shoot, all they had to do was see that the gun being extended towards them was in the holster and therefore could not be fired".
I am trying to prove that I can extend a gun "visibly inside a holster" and still fire it, thus proving that their claims that Erik Scott did not present a deadly threat are wrong.
I'm happy to go shooting with you, but don't place conditions on my demonstration beyond what it is intended to prove....that conditions visibly matching what Erik Scott presented CAN BE a deadly threat.
I know, but I did, that was the bet. I also said a lot of other things, you could even slide your finger in, as long as it was in the blah blah who cares anymore... I've come to the conclusion that this is not going to happen.
We will all see what happens in court soon, I'm sure.
Wendor, I'm In!!! I'll meet you at American Shooters Supply and Gun Club? I live just down the street so let me know when it's good for you? I just happen to have the Uncle Mikes Sidekick and a Kimber CDP 2 compact. Now remember, its a 1911 style 45. you have to "prep it to fire"(single action) and you'll need to do that with one hand. BTW out of the 20 plus friends who have tried the same feat... the holster falls to the ground(100% of the time) the moment you cock it.Long before you can get your hand around the grip safety. Just sayin.....
Terry - Clark County Shooting Park - Saturday, 11am.
And keep in mind that I can have it cocked before I even start. Since Metro had no way to determine what condition the gun was in before it was pointed at them, we get to use "worst case scenario" since that's what they potentially had to face.
Wendor, If you get to use "worst case scenario". Why use a holster at all? Why even use a gun period? After all, one officer said he didn't see a gun until it was over. No. We will use the same rig, and in the same condition it was photographed on the ground at the scene by detectives (hammer forward). Now,I will let you chamber a round since we heard no testimony to the contrary.Remember, you've got 3-4 seconds....
Nope.
My point is to prove that the police had no choice but to shoot Erik when he pulled his gun.
Others have stated that the police should have seen that the gun was in a holster in Erik's hand when he extended his arm and therefore should not have shot him because "it is impossible for him to fire with the gun in the holster"
The ONLY thing I am trying to prove is that I can bring the weapon up, VISIBLY IN THE HOLSTER, and still fire. With that proven, it follows that the police had to shoot, just the same as if the gun had not been in a holster.
You may do whatever you want out at the range, my time there and purpose is the same as I originally stated - to prove that the gun in question CAN be fired while still in the holster. I will prove MY point and then I'm done.
Wandered around here for the last half hour and no one identified themselves as looking for me (my shirt has my name on it). Going to go shoot for a while and then head home.