Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Clark County commissioners debate changes to the inquest system during a meeting at the Clark County Government Center Tuesday, October 5, 2010.
Published Monday, June 20, 2011 | 2:51 p.m.
Updated Monday, June 20, 2011 | 4:58 p.m.
Sun archives
- First coroner’s inquest under new rules is set for July 12 (6-3-2010)
- November police killing inching closer to inquest under new rules (5-6-2011)
- County commission finalizes changes to coroner’s inquest process (1-3-2011)
- Officers refuse to answer questions in death of man shot with Taser (12-31-2010)
- Commissioners discuss appointment of coroner’s inquest ombudspersons (12-22-2010)
- County Commission OKs changes to coroner’s inquest process (12-7-2010)
- Commissioners outline concerns of proposed inquest changes (11-16-2010)
- County commission to hear board’s suggestions for inquest changes (11-16-2010)
- Coroner’s inquest review panel proposes changes (11-8-2010)
The Police Protective Association will file legal action on Tuesday to block changes to the coroner's inquest process in cases of fatal officer-involved shootings.
The police union had pushed for a bill during the legislative session to eliminate coroner's inquests, but the effort ultimately failed.
An ordinance to revise the inquest hearing process was passed on Dec. 7, 2010. Changes include the establishment of an ombudsman to represent the victim’s family, the release of key evidence and investigative files, and the restructuring of meetings before the inquest hearing.
"A Petition for Writ of Prohibition and a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in District Court will be filed on the basis that the recently adopted changes to the inquest process render it unconstitutional," the police union said in announcing a Tuesday morning news conference.
The inquest process, in use for 40 years, was scrutinized following the high-profile officer-involved killings of Erik Scott, shot last July at a Summerlin Costco, and Trevon Cole, shot in his Las Vegas apartment in June 2010. In the wake of public outcry, commissioners reviewed the inquest process and held a number of public hearings at the end of last year.
Police officers and their union representatives were opposed to the presence of an ombudsperson in the proceedings. They said the ombudsperson would make the proceedings adversarial.
A two-day coroner's inquest in the November 2010 officer-involved shooting of Benjamin Bowman is scheduled for July 12-13 and will be the first inquest to implement the new changes.
The Las Vegas Police Protective Association represents more than 2,800 rank-and-file police and corrections officers employed by Metro Police, and marshals employed by the city of Las Vegas.
The unions for police officers and other public officials have become abortions of what they were intended to be. They do not serve the public intrest and should be abolished.
Police3 officers need to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. That means not shooting an inoccent person with no hostile intentions.
Eric Scott did not need to die. He would still be here and the police need to be held responsible for that.
Again, the tail is wagging the dog with a public employee union. The police officers' union and its good members should be ashamed. A few bad officers are again tainting the entire department, and holding Metro up for worldwide ridicule. I am disgusted with our public officials and these union "leaders." I wish this union could go the way of PATCO.
The responsibility to decide whether the officers acts are criminal or not was and still is in the hands of the D.A. The inquest is a waste of time and with the recent changes will be even less effective. If you as taxpayers don't mind using taxpayer money to basically give the families a free deposition to use in civil court, then you've lost your mind. Thats all the changes have done, and the inquests have no effect on whether or not the D.A. is going to prosecute an officer.
I thought that the police officers were supposed to UPHOLD the law and not sue to overturn it. But this is Nevada where the motto should be "Corrupt R Us".
FRM I guess police officers have no right to use the legal system to dispute something they feel is not lawful? It's funny how people pick and choose when we should follow the Constitution and peoples rights for due process
gohugatree has the right of it. What he(?) doesn't point out (or is unaware of) is that our DA apparently refuses to take action when an officer is involved.
boftx Then the complaint should be with the district attorney. The vast majority of agencies do not use any type of inquest process. If you feel the DA isnt doing his job then vote for another candidate. The inquest process has just become a tool for blood sucking attorneys to try to squeeze more money out of our county.
total bull$#!^!!!
hey cops...
kiss my @$$!!!
So essentially the police union is saying what exactly? They believe that they have the right to kill anyone at anytime and not have it questioned at an inquest? Do I, a taxpayer, really want to pay for a police force that may shoot me without consequence because I said something they didn't like or because they and they're buddies agreed to stick to a story that may fall apart during an inquest?
This is beyond gross and these guys had better tread lightly unless they find themselves under Justice Department scrutiny. If Vegas wants to keep tourists coming by the millions they'd had better hope that this sort of thing doesn't start to get national attention. This is a problem of volcanic proportions and all the cries of "support the police they're doing a great job" aren't going to make it go away. All it's going to take is for the wrong person to get injured or killed by one Metro's goon squad and the whole thing is going to make this city look like the worst place to risk visiting.
If there are good cops on the force then they need to step up to the plate and clearly say "inquire of us anything you like because I stand by my decisions and can prove they were warranted and legal". Silence is the same as agreement.
The police don't just shoot people because they enjoy it. They are trained to determine a situation and how dangerous it is to the public. If a person is a danger to others, AND the police officer, they will handle the situation to minimize the danger to the public. If you disagree with how the police do their job, why don't you citizens go and try to talk down a drugged up person with TWO guns on his person in a public store. TWO guns!! Why would any normal, sane person have TWO guns on them when in a store?? Next time you disagree w/the police and how they protect the rest of us, why don't you go up to them and offer to do their job for them? Go ahead and see how effective you are at disarming a drugged up person. I'll pray for you at your funeral. And no, I am not a cop, just a citizen that actually appreciates what the police do for us. If you disagree w/how they protect us, please don't call 911 and ask for the police when an armed intruder comes into your home. Just talk them out of their weapon, like you'd have the police do.
"The police don't just shoot people because they enjoy it. "
some do. the rest of your note is pure blather.
and if I might be very brief on my feeling on this?
FIRE THE A-holes!
carry on.
Oh yeah --- its beyond time for cameras in the cars. hiding something?
@bcbabe. The "drugged up person who had two guns at a public store" was walking peacefully out of the store next to other customers who didn't even know that he was armed and didn't see him as a threat. The only shots fired during that incident were the seven rounds fired by police in a crowded store entrance. The police had to have that "drugged up person" pointed out to them or he would have walked to his car. Yes, he was a real threat, NOT!!!
This could be the third strike for the police union. They failed in trying to keep the changes from being approved by the County Commission. The union and the DA asked a retired federal LEO, John Hambrick, to introduce legislation during the last session to change the law on the Coroner's Inquest in Clark County. The ultimate irony would be if the judge ordered the union members to testify.
The DA still hasn't presented the conflict in testimony between the Medical Examiner, who said the Trevon Cole was kneeling when he was shot and killed and Brian Yant who said that Cole was standing and advancing on him. Oh, yeah, not good form to have the defendant in a Federal wrongful death and excessive force case indicted for his actions in that case.
"The "drugged up person who had two guns at a public store" was walking peacefully out of the store next to other customers who didn't even know that he was armed and didn't see him as a threat. "
So Tanker, what you are saying is, since the police were called to the Costco due to a reported armed person damaging property, refusing to leave the store when asked, and acting like he was on drugs, that the police should have just let him walk away and NOT conduct an investigation because he was leaving?
Unfortunately police do not have the option of just letting some folks walk away after they are reported to have committed a crime.
Sure, Erik Scott did not have to die, he could have followed Officer Masher's commands, #1 get on the ground, ....Scott does not and moves his hands towards his waist, #2 let me see your hands,....Scott reached for and pulls out a firearm #3 drop it! Scott points gun towards Officer Mosher .....Three officers see this and fire at Scott believing that he was a deadly threat to the officer.
Oh and by the way, several other witnesses also saw this and beleived that the officers were under a threat also....
This OIS was clean even though the family blame the police for the issues their son had, and they refused to do anything about FOR YEARS.
The girlfriend dodged her subpoena to the inquest, why? Oh yeah, she was writing bogus prescriptions on stolen prescription pads....
Scott was a West Point Grad sure, but he claimed to be a Green Beret, a lie, he had less than 2 years in the Army after graduation, and was supposedly a tank officer. The girlfriend told the store people Scott "just got back from Iraq" a lie, he was never there.
As a military combat vet, I am appalled at the outright lies from a graduate from Hudson High, and I cannot believe that after reading about and hearing about these lies, you of ALL PEOPLE would believe anything Scott, the girlfriend or the family would say.
I took my oaths of Integrity, Service and Courage to heart, and I would assume as a US Army Officer you would have also, as Scott should have but apparently did not.
lets see..In the matter of seconds, the thugs shouted several different commands. What does one do? Mosher's FAT belly was probly blocking his view. Maybe he thought he could get some free donuts. Devil dog stop trying to spin the story about his girlfriend, YOUR girlfriend may do those favors for you, but not every girlfriend does. GET IT??? It's about time the thugs got their just due, instead of having the inquisition being stacked in their favor. Refuse to testify under the new rules... then THEY ARE GUILTY. PERIOD!!!
The fundamental flaw with the inquest process "as it was being carried" out is that it is presented as a fact finding mission. On the contrary. It serves as nothing more than a clearing house. The intelligent observer is able to easily ascertain the one-sided nature of the investigation whereby witnesses who do not support the officer(s) rendition of the need to use lethal force are met with contempt by the DA's attorney. The DA does everything in his power to attempt to discredit such witnesses while treating supporting witnesses as friends who have come over for a Sunday afternoon barbecue.
The DA's office has the option of choosing only those witnesses who support their position. This is easily done by going through witness reports taken at the scene or subsequent interviews. The decedent's family only has the option to ask questions in writing and has no opportunity to present any counter expert witnesses. Further, spending an inordinate amount of time going over who the decedent was what the decedent did prior to the shooting is irrelevant and only serves to color the imagination of the jurors for the purposes of swaying them in favor of the outcome. In reality, the only question that needs to be addressed is whether the officers acted in accordance with procedure-- was the use of lethal force justified under the circumstances at that time? Nothing more. Nothing less. Anything beyond that and you are relegating the officer the role of executioner based on what you deem to be the "character" of the decedent.
So setting aside whether one supports the police and/or their association, it is the inquest process that has been scrutinized. To assume that a citizen who scrutinizes the flaws of the old inquest system is anti-police smack in the face of logic. It could easily be argued that an officer who is cleared via a one-sided inquest system is done a disservice, when in reality his or her actions warranted a "justified" ruling, but was tainted by association with a flawed inquest process.
Either way, the old inquest system left a bad taste in the mouths of many citizens who support the police. Calls for a change to the inquest system did not appear from thin air. It was the result of years of frustration by citizens who did not see fairness in the process. So maybe the (old) inquest process was not designed to be fair. Maybe it (was) designed to be a one-sided clearinghouse of sorts. Well if it was, then at least call it for what it was. But to have called it a fact finding mission designed to obtain the facts; a search for the truth; well... it was anything but that.
One would have to therefore ask, if the old inquest process hadn't stunk of partiality, perhaps there would have been no need to change the inquest process. And who's to say that the officers who have been cleared of wrongdoing would not have also been cleared of wrongdoing under a more rigorous inquest system. Sometimes the means renders the end- spurious, when it needn't be.
@devildog. Please identify the "lies" in my comments. What you neglected to point out is that the secquence of commands that Mosher issues were given in less than SEVEN seconds. As I listened to the tape at the inquest, the correct sequence of commands was "Get your hands up, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground." Mosher, in his testimony at the inquest, said that he didn't remember giving the different commands and had to listen to the tape. He also testified that the command he expected to be obeyed was "get on the ground" so if any other one of his multiple commands would have been followed, he would have perceived it as a threat. The testimony of the witnesses was cherry picked by the DA, having only those witnesses who supported the police version of events testify.
Shall we talk about the four round that were fired by Mendiola as Scott was lying on the ground, dying? He must feel bad, since he didn't get the same recognition as Mosher and Stark for performing one of the most "Heroic" actions of a Metro officer last year. That was the most "heroic" according to the president of the union, Chris Collins, who is on the board of directors of the national agency that gave the award. To this date, Gillispie has not issued a public statement congratulating the "heroic" officers for their actions. But, Mendiola did get a criminal indictment and get fired for giving a convicted felon a pistol and ammunition.
@devildog. part 2. As the Army was drawing down, many members of his class were offered early discharges as the Army had too many officers. If you look at the records of the Association of Graduates, you will see that he and approximately 100 of his classmates were given early discharges. The Cullum entry for Scott lists his branch as Armor.
Mosher was specially trained to defuse situations as these, not to make them worse by having an armed confrontation in an area crowded with innocent bystanders, including grandmothers and children. Since the officers had to have Scott point out to them, they could have followed him out to a less crowded area, and began their investigation there.
The only person who claimed that he was a "green beret" was Lierly. Shall we talk about the missing tapes, which magically started working after they were rebooted by Metro's computer evidence specialist. Lierly said that he tried the same process and it "didn't work".
Have a nice day, devildog, or should I say William Mosher?
Even with the new process at the inquest..I'm sure the results will still be JUSTIFIED in all the police killings..Hey, it's Vegas get used to it..I've been watching this stuff for all of the 32 years I've lived here and it ain't gonna change..
There are still people out there that think the police are their friend. Wait until you are someone in your family have to deal with them. They will do everything they can to put them in jail, including lying and planting evidence. If that doesn't work. They can always shoot you.
Tanker,
1st off I am not Mosher....and I was not talking about you in relation to lies....
I was talking about Scott and the girlfriend.
He was NOT a green beret, as he stated and the girlfriend had told the store workers he was "just back from Iraq" when asked to leave the store.
2nd, how long does an officer wait after giving a command to see if it going to be followed, and give a second command?
If you say "get on the ground," and the person reaches for their waist, do you wait to see what they are reaching for? No you give another command.
7 seconds is a long time....How long does it take to get on the ground, or put your hand up or draw a weapon and fire several times?
3 commands in 7 seconds; 1-GET ON THE GROUND....Not hard to understand, very self explanatory. (Scott reaches for waistband) 2-SHOW ME YOUR HANDS...again not difficult to understand (Scott pulls out gun)
3-DROP IT!..Again very easily understood command...Try these with a any child over the age of 5 and I bet 98% will comply if the commands are given with a little authority.
Time the sequence and you will see that 7 seconds was plenty of time to give the comands, observe the response, and issue the next command.
I watched the entire inquest, and it was clearly stated by the Coroner that Scott was NOT shot while on the ground, all the shots were fired as he was standing, and the last shot, Mendiola's to the buttock, hit Scott as he was falling.
If you tell someone to get on the ground, and they reach for the waist, what do YOU tell then next? Do YOU wait to see if they pull a gun, of do YOU give an different command?
You tell me Tanker, since you seem to know all about human nature and police procedures, and how to handle people with weapons, HOW SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN DONE?
@Devildog. First of all, get the sequence of commands correct. The commands on the 911 taped played at the inquest were "Get your hand where I can see them, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground." There were no pauses between the commands, and immediately after the last command, the sound of two shots could be heard. A holstered pistol was found next to the body.
The medical examiner never testified that the last shot fired by Mendiola occured as Scott was falling. The angles of the trajectories of the four shots in the back show that the shots were fired while he was on the ground. The medical examiner couldn't tell the sequence of shots, all she could do was report the location and trajectories.
And our elected sheriff does what? Nothing...as usual. Remember him at election time, pass over his name.
Difficult to try to understand where some people are coming from on this topic. The idiocy of some comments is beyond comprehension...IF the DA believed that police were involved in criminal behavior in regard's to an officer involved shooting----I KNOW that they would either file a criminal complaint or they would convene a Criminal Grand Jury and indict the offender(s) ! I still believe in the Criminal Justice System as opposed to those "conspiracy theorist's" who believe that the DA and Metro are in "cahoot's"...hogwash! I also believe that the county Board of Supervisor's overstepped their "authority" when they decided to engage the services of an Ombudsman---a higher court will rule on the action(s) filed by the PPA.....I am of the opinion that Clark Co. will eventually have to do away with the Coroner's Inquests! Many comments are nothing more than an emotional outburst as opposed to a well thought out, well informed comment...! The PPA will prevail on this one ! The two "Writ's" that were filed are only the beginning, these writs are basically saying that the county BOS cannot implement the new guidelines and they cannot/should not be able to proceed !
I must disagree Tanker, I was at the inquest, heard the testimony about the commands, and the sequence is correct. The commands were very close together....BECAUSE SCOTT WAS NOT COMPLYNG AND REACHING FOR A WEAPON!
And the ME DID testify as to the trajectory of the shots, only 1 was in qusteion, and that was Mendiola's final shot.
There was a witness that said he was shot several times on the ground, and the ME debunked that with their testimony, but the media ran with that for days.
@Devildog. I was in the courtroom when the tape was played and the judge timed the sequence. The sequence of commands has been reported in a number of sources including this paper, and the sequence you are reporting is NOT correct. The tape is also available online. Mosher testified that he didn't remember giving the sequence and said that if it was on tape, then he must have given those commands in that sequence. How can you identify after the fact what shots were fired in what sequence? It is impossible. There were a number of shots in the back that had an upward trajectory, but the most remarkable was the one in the buttocks, that traveled from back to front, eventually destroying the bladder.
@Tahoe.DI. "IF the DA believed that police were involved in criminal behavior in regard's to an officer involved shooting----I KNOW that they would either file a criminal complaint or they would convene a Criminal Grand Jury and indict the offender(s)". What about Brian Yant and the conflict with the forensic evidence presented by the medical examiner in the Cole case? When is that going to be presented to a grand jury. After the Federal case is resolved. Don't want Yant to be indicted before that case is heard.
when an investigation is under way and the police ask for volunteers to give their DNA or be searched or whatever people comment "if you haven't done anything wrong I see no problem with this" I guess this mentality does not apply to an investigation on the police only civilians
Perhaps in our eagerness to take sides against each other over the issue, we are ignoring the most obvious of all solutions. I mean if the cops simply stopped shooting citizens then we wouldn't have this problem.
After all, the North Las Vegas Police Department went almost two years between Fatal OIS's. Metro consistently has one of the highest numbers of deadly OIS in the nation (outpacing cities like Philly and LA). This is despite the fact the Metro officers are rarely victims of line of duty shootings. Metro responds to thousands of calls every day, and yet in the past 23 years only TWO officers have been victims of fatal line of duty shootings. Just because a inquest determines that a shooting is justified, that doesn't make it RIGHT. The standards for a justifiable shooting are minimal. If an officer claims that he believed that either he or another citizen is in immediate danger then deadly force is justified. The problem is what he BELIEVED to be true and what was ACTUALLY TRUE don't have to be the same.
While an officer's actions may not be CRIMINAL there have been far too many Metro shootings that were the result of a MISTAKE OF FACT by the officer (and that makes the generous assumption that while cops may lie to in order to go on a road trip to the Grand Canyon, get a warrant, or falsely arrest couple of tourists, cops would never lie for something trivial, like staying out of prison) and that seems acceptable. If any business had policies in place that consistently resulted in the deaths of a dozen people every year, we would demand they make changes. The sad truth is we spend so far too much time arguing on the procedures we will use to dismiss an officer's actions, and far too little time trying to actually trying to find away to just reduce the number of the Metro officer's cut short each year. But I know, asking Metro to shoot less people makes me a cop hater. I still haven't figured that one out, because I was always taught that cops actually hated having to take lives. Am I wrong about that????
I like how people tend to throw the term "conspiracy theorist" around when others see things differently. If the commissioners had no right to implement new policy then the court(s) will rule on that. Who knows, maybe that's what the commissioners wanted in the end anyways. It definitely shifts the public's discontent away from them and onto the courts.
But let's consider this, if there was such widespread support for the PPA on this, why did the bill they introduced to the legislature fail?
It would seem that based on the statistics and/or any subsequent charges being brought forth by the DA against an officer (or lack thereof), the old inquest policy had an implicit message... OIS's that result in the death of a citizen are guaranteed to be justified always. Further, by DA or State's withholding key information or evidence that may bring into question the officer's actions and/or intentions, one can reasonably assume that there was bias in the old inquest process. Be that as it may, the old inquest process should have been called something else. Something like: the State's version of the story. End of story.
Look, no one is trying to tie the hands of police officers. I think the push to change the inquest system was, at some level, an attempt to deal with the public's perception that it was a dog and pony show. As I said before, if at a bare minimum the old inquest system came across as a genuine search for the facts, I doubt it would have come to this. But the problem was that it was so blatantly and apparently one-sided.
Again, the changes that were made did not appear from thin air. It wasn't one family spearheading the call for change. In my opinion, it was the culmination of many after-the-fact findings that raised eyebrows to process. Contrary to what some believe, I am of the opinion that no juries are going to come back and recommend criminal charges against an officer who performs his or her duties by the book. I would even go so far as to say, few if any would come back and recommend criminal charges even if an officer had not perform by the book. Moreover, even if the officer simply screwed up, you are not likely to get enough jurors to come back recommending criminal charges be filed. It would take, in my opinion, an officer acting with blatant and wanton disregard for human life, with the sole purpose of intent to maim or kill a citizen, that would propel a jury to come back with a criminal ruling. Let's get real here. The way in which the old inquest was carried out had some serious public relations issues which forced it to the table. Who's fault was that? Well it was the fault of Clarke County's constituents for letting it go on as long as it did. With that in mind, how do we forget that in a democracy, people are responsible for making the laws that govern them. Democratic governments cannot make laws that preclude it's citizens from making changes to how it operates, otherwise it is not democratic. If a public servant does not agree with the mandate set before them, then they are entitled to choose another line of work. Upholding the Constitution and it's democratic principles is part and parcel of serving the public's interests in this or any other democracy. Lest one prefers a fascist regime. But hey, unions advocacy groups do what they do. And in a democracy they have a right to voice their opposition.
The past inquest process was a joke. It was designed and guaranteed to clear police officers and assuage the public, no matter how heinous the police actions.
A grand jury proceeding would work where voters have an honest, dedicated and basically moral District Attorney, but Las Vegas/Clark County lacks that. Rogers is in the pocket of the police union.
It is the RIGHT of the PPA to block. That is how the system operates.
Since when do we pick and choose which RIGHTS we will entertain?