"In compliance" is a scary term. It reeks of gestapo. If you are disorderly - highly inappropriate, sure, but not immediately endangering people's lives or property - you will be forced through escalating means to become "compliant." When these violent methods do not work, you will be complianced to death, apparently.

There. The big scary man with a STICK is fully "in compliance."

Why is it that every time a cop shoots someone the bullet kills the person when in "normal" violent acts oftentimes the person will survive the wound and be given a chance to tell his or her story or at the very least see their day in court? But when a Metro cop is involved, more times than not, the person is killed. Shooting to force "compliance" does not seem to be the same thing as shooting to kill the person, at least not in my view. There are people with mental/emotional problems all around the world and there needs to be someone in the situation that can have the wherewithal and circumspection to disarm the person without having to take their life. If they can not step up to that difficult task, they should not be given a badge. For those officers we do not hear about who act bravely and appropriately, my hat is off to you men and women, because it *is* difficult work.

And, by the way, "low-lethal force" is the most idiotic terminology I have seen in the news in quite awhile, and that's really saying something. It is either lethal or it is not. You can't "kinda" kill someone.

...with what?

This person is not a U.S. citizen, much less a registered voter, so why we should care who he endorses - I am at a loss to understand.

Exactly what in the world do you think $250 is going to do for anyone, Harry?

The system needs to be set up in such a way as to remove any influence in the outcome of the inquest completely away from the sheriff's office or law enforcement chain of command involved in a shooting. There is too much influence that leaves the question and in this case the appearance of deception from the authorities, whether it was intended or not. Everyone involved in the process should feel better about a new process that would remove those doubts. If it were me I would not want to be in a position where it would look like I might have influenced circumstances in any way.

Furthermore, coroners are meant to determine how someone died, not why. That is, in my opinion, outside of the scope of their expertise.

This is a disgrace.

I for one want to "allow free speech to take precedence over profits."

Have we all gone mad in the United States? The idea that we should sacrifice the first of all of our basic rights in this country so some company can possibly make a profit is absolutely shocking. Has it really come to this?

I do not want to spend one red cent for this. If the owners want to pay for it more power to them. If Oscar wants to spend his savings towards it, right on. Las Vegas has more pressing issues and taxing the public for someone else's profit should be banned outright in this country.

Apparently Nick is an example of someone whom the moderators should be moderating. There's no room for personal, ad hominem attacks in a legitimate debate.

Nothing is "destroying Nevada." Period. Certainly not the lack of a sporting arena that was not here just the same while the city and state was booming... As for "libertarian" ideas - they actually run very deep right here in Nevada and have for a very long time.

I am not paying extra taxes to give someone else a new way to make money. It's insane that publicly funding a stadium is even considered. It is a horrible practice that should never have been started across the country.