Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friends and supporters mark the one-year anniversary of Erik Scott’s death outside the Summerlin Costco, where he was fatally shot by Metro Police officers.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012 | 8:21 p.m.
Erik Scott family drops lawsuit against Metro
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
KSNV coverage of the family of Erik Scott dropping their case against Metro Police. Scott was shot and killed by officers in July 2010 at a Summerlin Costco, March 13, 2012.
Bill Scott, father of Erik Scott, leaves the courtroom after a verdict in a coroner's inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Tuesday, September 28, 2010. The jury found that the shooting of Erik Scott was justified. Scott was shot and killed by Metro Police Officers at the Summerlin Costco store on July 10.
Sun archives
- Judge drops Clark County from wrongful death suit over Costco shooting (6-8-11)
- Judge to rule if sheriff, county will remain defendants in Costco shooting lawsuit (6-1-11)
- Former Metro officer involved in Costco shooting pleads not guilty to gun charge (5-26-11)
- Officer involved in Erik Scott shooting indicted on weapons charge (1-31-11)
- Metro officer tied to Costco shooting faces felony weapons charge (1-31-11)
- Erik Scott family drops Costco from federal lawsuit (1-20-11)
- Erik Scott family buys 4 billboard ads seeking Costco video (10-28-10)
- Police officers found justified in Erik Scott shooting; family plans lawsuit (9-28-10)
- Detective: Erik Scott had pain medicines from several doctors (9-27-10)
- Witnesses give conflicting accounts of Costco police shooting (9-25-10)
- Shoppers recount police shooting outside Costco (9-24-2010)
After nearly two years of legal proceedings, the family of Erik Scott — a 38-year-old who was shot and killed at a Costco store by police on July 10, 2010 — has dropped its lawsuit against Metro Police.
The family agreed to drop the suit as long as Metro agreed not to pursue reimbursement for legal fees, police said.
“It just made no sense to continue with this lawsuit,” said Bill Scott, father of Erik Scott. “We’re extremely disappointed.”
Officers fired at Scott after he failed to surrender at a Costco at 801 South Pavilion Center Drive in Summerlin, police said.
A coroner’s inquest conducted in September 2010 found that officers William Mosher, Joshua Stark and Thomas Mendiola were justified in the shooting.
But witness accounts of the incident were mismatched. Shoppers that day described Scott as acting erratically, damaging merchandise and wearing a pistol on his waistband. Other witnesses provided conflicting statements saying Scott did not appear to be a threat.
“I firmly believe Erik was murdered,” Bill Scott said. “The law has very little to do with justice.”
In January 2011 the family dropped a case against Costco saying their case against Metro Police was stronger.
The Scott family has until July to consider bringing up a lawsuit against the grocery company in accordance with a two-year state court statute of limitations.
“As sheriff my hope is that the Scott case has shown the community that it is best to reserve judgment until a thorough investigation can be done,” said Sheriff Doug Gillespie in a news release. “Although the Scott family dropped their lawsuit, at the end of the day we still have a family who grieves the loss of their son and brother.”
What this bias artical fails to mention was even though there was mis matches in stories. Most stories overwhelmingly saw mr. Scott as a threat of some sort.
After all the talk. All the "wait until the civil case". The girlfriend will testify. All their witnesses who were withheld from speaking who would be heard at this trial. All of their evidence. They drop their suit? What a joke.
Their lawyer took them down a rotten road.
The issue in the case was not the evidence, it was a recent decision of the 9th Circuit Court decision in a similar case. The course held that even though excessive force may have been used, the officers were still entitled to "qualified immunity" unless evidence is presented that disqualifies that defense. The missing video tape that was not seized by Metro the day of the incident is the problem.
"Goodman said that without the video, he didn't feel that he could overcome a qualified immunity defense for police officers, which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has recently bolstered. The appeals court recently ruled that even when excessive force is used by police, officers are still entitled to an affirmative defense of "qualified immunity," Goodman said.
Under federal law qualified immunity is a defense given to government agents protecting them against civil lawsuits if they act within the established law. Regarding a law enforcement agent's use of excessive force, a plaintiff must show the officer acted maliciously to overcome the qualified immunity defense."
@Djkgroup. Oh, that Mr Scott was a "threat" explains why he was walking out of the store with all of the other customers, and had to be pointed out by the Costco employee. If he was such a threat, I would expect people to be running from him and that Metro would be easily be able to identify the man who was such a threat to all of the other customers. Why weren't the other customers fleeing from the "threat" and gathering near the entrance where Scott was killed.
All he had to do was raise his arms and wait to be cleared by the police. Shame he did not, but Metro has a job to do and get shot at all the time, from people like this that do not obey and respect the law.
Let them tell their version of events at trial. That was the whole point of withholding their witnesses. Goodman is a joke. This trial was about putting their version of events on the table. The very last thing they should worry about is the verdict or appeal. They knew they did not have a case. They knew their witnesses would be crushed. whatever happened to his girlfriend? The sole witness who was there beginning to end. She's been a mute and now will never be heard.
This case ended the minute the video tape went poof. Gillespie has no business even commenting.
Is this seriously still being debated? Oh, suddenly there is new evidence that he was just casually walking out of the store and just a lucky one that day picked out by the police to be shot at? That sounds ridiculous! Every week I am reading stories of people claiming the police just shot at them for no reason. However, time and again, out and about, I see people thinking they have some divine right to disrespect law enforcement and military personnel. Don't be stupid and challenge the authority of our police and military, just do what you're told and you won't be shot.
Tanker1975: I'm sorry to tell you this but if people who have guns on them were always shot then we would be hearing about stories all day long. Mr. Scott became that level threat, not when he walked out the store but when he,a man with a gun, refused to listen and made actions ( intentional or not) at his weapon. so let's not be little children and act like there is only one level threats.
And is this outcome supposed to show there was absolutely no other way the officers could have handled the situation rather than to kill a man?
Why hasn't his girlfriend been charged as a thief and drug dealer for the missing script pad?
If you own a CCW, you know the rules for carrying a concealed weapon and they do not include the permission to drink and carry or be stoned and carry.
If his medical condition required him to be under the constant influence of narcotics then he shouldn't been carrying ANYWHERE.
If I represented Costco in court I'd sue the family of this idiot for costs incurred.
Law enforcement has a tough enough job to do and when anyone refuses to comply with a direct order, they should be wasted.
Too many lawmen have lost their lives protecting the public because elements of society think they can do anything they want and not pay a price for their actions.
Sympathy for the family,..Not A Chance!
""I firmly believe Erik was murdered," Bill Scott said. "The law has very little to do with justice."
Amen to that.
"After nearly two years of legal proceedings, the family of Erik Scot" is likely to have their own attorney bill in at least the high 5 figures. Factor in the involved cops get their attorneys for free, thanx to their Union and the good but clueless people of Clark County, and it's not hard to do the math of modern "just us."
One of us was summarily executed by our cops. The aggrieved family is forced to drop their case against the executioners while the suits walk away with that family's hard-earned money. So much for "a more perfect Government."
"The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law ..... When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?" -- the Honorable Edith Jones to Harvard's Federalist Club "American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law School" 2/28/03
Killer, "One of us was summarily executed by our cops"
While my current faith in the law enforcement community has been shattered I truly believe your comment is not only inflammatory but completely unjustified.
I wasn't there and you weren't either. He should have never carried that day, or as we have learned about his chemical dependence, any day.
He set in motion his demise. He was so intoxicated he probably didn't even know what commands he needed to respond to. For all we know he didn't even recognize the officers as officers. He might even have mistaken them for some other threat.
I take great umbrage with your statement.
@KillerB, it is NRS 41.0339 and NRS 41.0349 that allow the involved officers to "get their attorneys for free." It has nothing to do with "their Union and the good but clueless people of Clark County. . . . ."
Prior comments can be found using the search function. I believe the facts were Scott was under the care of a Doctor and was on several prescription drugs. He was also a veteran and carried a CCW. Being Nevada Scott didn't even have to conceal his weapon and could have had them holstered and visible and been legal. Costco, if they had a problem with weapons, needed signs posted at their entrance forbidding firearms. Indication is Costco did NOT have such signs then. Metro should never have been called as Scott was breaking no laws and complying with the request to leave. The request to leave is the back-up for businesses when they do have no gun signs. Scott understood this command and was exiting. I feel Costco was liable since they were the ones who escalated the use of force against a legal citizen complying with the law by calling in the police. A police force which is known to be trigger happy and apparently as badly trained in their business as the Costco security people are. Scott's Doctor appears to be as dysfunctional as Metro and Costco. Scott's doctor is yet another incompetent party prescribing mood altering substances to a gun carrying war veteran.
The lesson for all of is we live in a society filled with stupid people. Relying upon any one of them puts yourself at risk, deadly risk in this example. Being stupid can be deadly.
"While my current faith in the law enforcement community has been shattered I truly believe your comment is not only inflammatory but completely unjustified."
Heretic -- I admit your first charge and deny your second. What you call "inflammatory" is my opinion and I'm as entitled to make mine as you are yours. Your "unjustified" might have some credibility if I had not been stopped by Metro last July. The attitudes and actions of 2 of the 3 badged thugs hovering around me for a simple traffic stop, and the court proceedings that followed, give me far more credibility on this point than you. I am Metro's critic forever until I see it and its masters completely reverse their attitudes and actions.
"How does it feel to be proven wrong time and time again?"
bob -- nobody has been proven wrong. More like the Scotts ran out of money, therefore they ran out of rights.
".. it is NRS 41.0339 and NRS 41.0349 that allow the involved officers to "get their attorneys for free." It has nothing to do with "their Union and the good but clueless people of Clark County. . . . ."
riotact -- wrong. Have you ever been part of the lawmaking process? I have. Those statutes 1) have to pass Constitutional muster to be entirely valid, including the inherent 14th Amendment's Equal Protection standard, and 2) were likely passed with heavy union and minimal "people of Clark County" influence
None of the above changes the fact Scott was executed by Metro for doing something he was at liberty to do -- he was packing and made some poor choices, none of which justified being shot to death.
"If the exercise of constitutional rights will thwart the effectiveness of a system of law enforcement, then there is something very wrong with that system." -- Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 490 (1964)
@Djkgroup. If you listen to the 911 tape as I did at the Inquest, you would hear Mosher, the first officer who fired, issue the following commands in less than 7 seconds as timed by the presiding judge. "Get your hands up, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground." In his testimony, Mosher didn't even remember the sequence he gave, which by the way is not the approved method of giving instructions to a man who you believe to be armed. Scott didn't have a weapon in his hand when he exited Costco, just a blackberry. Mosher further testified that the command he expected to be obeyed was "get on the ground." Which command would you have obeyed?
Best wishes to the survivors. Once again, legal wrangling overcomes justice.
its amazing how people assume about this case...now people assume that they dropped the lawsuit due to money (killerb)...well i guess i should assume then and think they dropped it because they finally realized they never had a case. also the cops pay union dues for their attorneys so they are not free...and killerb, what laws have you helped pass...i vote on propsed laws too, so does that mean i am part of the process as well...and what do you always do that demands that so many officer are involved on your stops? whenever i get stopped by metro,nhp there is just one officer and they are for the most part nice...since you are always the common denominator in their stops, maybe its you that is the problem and not them...
@KillerB: You are wrong. Now, you may speculate as to whom was the driving force behind these laws, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the cited NRS that allows the involved officers to "get their attorneys for free." To say otherwise is pure nonsense.
"Have you ever been part of the lawmaking process?" Yes, I have -- and you are correct in stating that "statutes have to pass Constitutional muster to be entirely valid." These statutes have been in existence for 33 years, and were last amended 25 years ago. They have yet to be challenged. Since you seem to be implying that the laws themselves are unconstitutional, you should step up to the plate and challenge them. Until a court agrees with your assessment, that assessment is nothing more than the opinion of an individual who thinks s/he knows more than s/he actually does.
Trevon Cole was murdered. Erik Scott lost his life because he went out armed and loaded on drugs, acted like an idiot and disobeyed ccw rules.
1. I am still waiting for someone to calmly and rationally tell me how a bullet wound can occur through an armpit unless the subject's arms are raised.
2. I am still waiting for someone to calmly and rationally tell me about the reason for any of the 5 shots in an already wounded subject's back.
3. Even if we accept as true the testimony of the first officer to shoot:
A. How exactly does someone legally carrying a concealed weapon turn it over to police on command if that weapon is known to misfire if dropped (as was the .380 pistol the subject was carrying)? Without getting killed in a hail of gunfire? Is the penalty for lawfully exercising one's Second Amendment right Death?
B. What were the other 5 shots other than uncontrolled "reflex actions" of the sort which adequate training prevents?
So what is our Sheriff doing about this now that he isn't faced with a lawsuit?
@Stephenrblv
too bad you fail to mention that he was under the influence of drugs as per the coroners report. How does that jibe with your CCW statement?
Erik is dead because of Erik.
@LericGoodman
All good questions. The answers to all those questions would have been brought about in the Scott's civil lawsuit...oops, they dropped the case hook, line and sinker. Can't have it both ways. They avoided the inquest because their story was going to be told at the civil trial. Their witnesses never said a word. Now they will never be heard. The appeal excuse for dropping the case is BS. If they really wanted their side of the story, they would have proceeded with their case. If it was me and my son was, what I felt unjustly killed, I'd take my chances and proceed and not worry that it might present financial hardship for me. Money should be the last thing on their mind as they proceed with their case.
@Tomd1228 Doesn't contradict it. It indicates the Doctor should not have been prescribing those medications and allowing this man to carry-on being armed. Course that being the situation, the Doctor has a responsibility NOT to prescribe. Pretty simple stuff.
Mr Goodman is killing it here and none supporting Metro seems the least bit interested in rebutting any of the items cited. Speaks volumes.
@stephenrblv
You can't be serious. The doctor can't stop this man from being armed and walking around with a gun? Erik knew he was on prescription medication that could leave him impaired. If he didn't, he should have been stripped of his right to carry for being beyond stupid. There's also a question that these drugs he was on were obtained legally. He obtained those drugs without the doctors consent. Strange how Erik's girlfriend worked in a doctors office and had access to the Rx pad. I believe the doctors testified they did not prescribe him medications anymore.
As I stated, the family had their chance to get their facts out at the civil trial. They ran for cover once they knew their witnesses would be crushed on cross examination.
Here is what one doctor who was cited by Erik Scott's father as a provider of drugs to his son said. Odd that Eriks' girlfriend worked for the guy, huh?
http://www.lasvegasvalley.com/story/1320...
Here's an interesting paragraph from your link Tom
Dr. John J. Pierce "He also serves as a Tactical Physician with the Las Vegas SWAT team".
Ageless Forever claims thru a link on their pages to be listed with the Better Business Bureau. The link at AF goes no place and there is nothing at the BBB indicating an affiliation with this clinic.
As now both of us have said, the girlfriend, this Doctor, and the clinic needed further investigating. Metro seemed to know all about this angle from the get-go. What are they dispensing there? Pierce didn't know Scott? I doubt that.
Tom do not assume a patient knows what the effects will be on self. This is the major reason we have the prescription process we do. I find it very interesting this same Dr is also dispensing to Metro. What are some of their officers on? The people in that field are playing with fire IMHO. Aging is not some ailment you give one a pill for.
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13194261/f...
Read the comments section as well.
Please Stephen. He showed all the signs of an addict. He was doctor shopping all over the place to get more pills. He has no clue the pills are putting him in LaLa Land?? Maybe on planet naive. Erik Scott knew exactly where he stood. He became addicted to pills.
I believe the Scott family did the best thing. Let Erik's memory be of love. I am truly sorry for everyones loss. Just a morning of poor choices that escalated out of control, with no winners.
I am amazed that anyone even still reads anything KillerB writes. Even more amazing is that anyone would try to reason with him. Long ago I learned to look at the author's name and just ignore what he has written if his posts are consistently without any merit. When I used to read his posts it seemed his main purpose in posting was to cite a quote, usually a pretty obscure one, in order to pump up his ego to falsely show he was much intellectual than the rest of us (in his mind anyway).
I guess the Scott sympathizers would all have you still believe that:
1. Costco was unjustified in calling 911, at the same time that
2. The cops were unjustified in the shooting and
3. The physician testimony regarding the toxicology reports and Scott's substance abuse are all wrong
Funny, it sounds alot like a former friend of mine who went off the deep end into mental illness and drug abuse, did alot of heinous stuff to alot of people, and he still rots in jail to this day singing the same torch song "it's not my fault, it's everyone elses..."
Now that Metro has saved some money perhaps they could spend it on dash cams so we can watch their behavior.