Las Vegas Costco shooting ruled justifiable

Strangely enough, I've NEVER had the police called on me. Not once in my whole life. I've never caused a public (or private) disturbance. I don't yell, raise my voice or threaten, or even act in a manner to be perceived as threatening. Fat is, the police were called because of his actions. HE is responsible. The police may or may not have made mistakes. They're human and it happens. Sometimes, in an instance where a firearm is involved, those mistakes prove fatal. It's unfortunate, but they should never have had the opportunity to make the mistakes. The officers should not lose their livelihoods, families and freedom for a mistake that should rest squarely on someone elses shoulders.
 
. . . The police may or may not have made mistakes.
Click to expand...
. . . The officers should not lose their livelihoods, families and freedom for a mistake that should rest squarely on someone elses shoulders.
Click to expand...


So even if they make mistakes that contribute to a death, the blame still rests squarely on the shoulders of the deceased? He can lose his life, and that's ok, but the officers shouldn't lose their livelihoods. I wonder if you would feel the same way if it was your son?

Remember. He only had a gun. He didn't threaten anybody, he wasn't ask to leave. He was shopping. He only attempted to obey a stupid command by handing over his holstered weapon when ordered to drop the gun that he wasn't holding. Somebody please explain to me how this is OK?

Even if the dynamic approach WAS called-for (which it wasn't, according to the facts), ONE officer giving the command to get down on the ground would have accomplished the goal. Not three officers screaming conflicting orders.

This critical breakdown in immediate command caused the pandemonium and the understandable confusion on the part of the deceased.

If this were all somehow OK, then there would be no bounds to the mistakes police may make with impunity. And I don't believe that to be true. Their errors resulted in a death. They may be exonerated, but they will have the burden of living with this for the rest of their life.
 
Last edited:
The officers should be held responsible if they had murderous intent. They were responding to a situation created by the OP. While I have no doubt that he was generally of good character, he was clearly not "just shopping" and a number of people felt threatened. They didn't call the police for no reason.

It's obvious that there are a number of posters in this thread are completely sold on the story as presented by the family of the deceased. I am not. Witness testimony suggests that he made a good number of poor decisions, starting before the arrival of the police and continuing from there to the actual shooting. Did he "deserve" to die for those decisions? Maybe, maybe not. The fact remains that he chose to do those things and the officers MUST (not choose, MUST) respond to his actions. They have split seconds to make their decisions, not the days and weeks of the internet quarterback. Unless their intent was murderous, they are not responsible. They did not act with gross negligence or murderous intent as such, their decisions, no matter how we find them after the fact, are what they are.
 
I have worked in the medical field for 15yrs (mostly ER). I think if you are on meds for depression and or other psych problems you should not have a gun period. These people are prone to taking a cocktail of meds and irrational behavior just a bad combo.
 
I have worked in the medical field for 15yrs (mostly ER). I think if you are on meds for depression and or other psych problems you should not have a gun period. These people are prone to taking a cocktail of meds and irrational behavior just a bad combo.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. He had no business with a gun if impaired. It's just that there was no aggression on the part of this subject. Whatever drugs he may or may not have on board, it is the behavior that should dictate the response.
 
Whatever drugs he may or may not have on board, it is the behavior that should dictate the response.
Click to expand...


And by implying that his behavior was NOT what dictated the officers response, we are left with no conclusion except that that INTENTIONALLY killed the man with murderous intent. There is no other conclusion.

The shooting was either based on his actions or the officers simply decided to kill the man for no reason.

Since there is no indication whatsoever that these officers would want to kill someone for no reason, we are left with the conclusion that they felt, in that brief millisecond time frame, that their lives were in danger and they had to act.

Were they correct in that belief? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is, they were FORCED into that situation. The deceased CHOSE that situation. The deceased has already paid the ultimate price for a series of stupid decisions. There is no reason that the officers, acting on good faith, should have to pay so severe a price.
 
think if you are on meds for depression and or other psych problems you should not have a gun period. These people are prone to taking a cocktail of meds and irrational behavior just a bad combo.
Click to expand...

THESE PEOPLE? What, are you inferring that folks who suffer from mental illness are in some fashion inferior, or not people?:mad:

Let me tell ya something sport, depression and other mental illnesses are ILLNESSES, treatable ILLNESSES. While I agree a line has to be drawn in terms of metal illnesses that render the sufferer INCOMPETENT to own a gun, or drive a car or even own a kitchen knife, to make a bald statement like you just made is an insult to the folks who suffer from mental illness, the family members who support them, and the docs that treat them.


WildihaveredactedtherestbasedonthethinktwicepostonceruleAlaska ™©2002-2010
 
Last edited:
And by implying that his behavior was NOT what dictated the officers response, we are left with no conclusion except that that INTENTIONALLY killed the man with murderous intent. There is no other conclusion.
Click to expand...
Oh, please. We don't have to assign murderous intent, or even ill-will to these officers when mere incompetence will do.

They didn't intend to murder anyone, but by their inept, and inappropriate handling of the situation, they backed themselves into the moment they actually did have to fire.

IF multiple and conflicting commands hadn't been issued, and a single clear command to get on the ground, HAD BEEN issued, this thread wouldn't exist, and Scott would be alive.

IF they had observed the man's behavior for even a minute, IF they had gotten their information correct, even IF they had tackled and dog-piled him (uncalled-for, but still better than creating a live fire scene in a crowd) IF they had calmly approached the man and ask him to walk with them (they had all the backup and cover they needed for this) IF, IF, IF . . .

They did NONE of these things.

We don't tolerate cop-bashing on this forum. You'll notice I am only talking about THESE officer in THIS situation. But we have a lot of patience for those who defend the officers at all costs, regardless of the facts of the situation. If no-one is willing to call a spade a spade, then we are tacitly condoning the errors, and guaranteeing that they will be repeated.

Nevada is an open carry state and a shall-issue state. This could have happened to almost anyone here. Except those of us who take from this the lesson to disobey any command from a police officer to touch your weapon for any reason, even to "DROP" or surrender it.

I notice that no-one, so far, is willing to touch the truth and logic of my argument. Only blindly stating the officers were in fear of their life. No doubt they were. But that was a stage THEY set, a scene about which they had all kinds of choices about how to play it out. They chose wrong.
 
Last edited:
Oh, please. We don't have to assign murderous intent, or even ill-will to these officers when mere incompetence will do.

They didn't intend to murder anyone, but by their inept, and inappropriate handling of the situation, they backed themselves into the moment they actually did have to fire.

IF multiple and conflicting commands hadn't been issued, and a single clear command to get on the ground, HAD BEEN issued, this thread wouldn't exist, and Scott would be alive.

IF they had observed the man's behavior for even a minute, IF they had gotten their information correct, even IF they had tackled and dog-piled him (uncalled-for, but still better than creating a live fire scene in a crowd) IF they had calmly approached the man and ask him to walk with them (they had all the backup and cover they needed for this) IF, IF, IF . . .

They did NONE of these things.

We don't tolerate cop-bashing on this forum. You'll notice I am only talking about THESE officer in THIS situation. But we have a lot of patience for those who defend the officers at all costs, regardless of the facts of the situation. If no-one is willing to call a spade a spade, then we are tacitly condoning the errors, and guaranteeing that they will be repeated.

Nevada is an open carry state and a shall-issue state. This could have happened to almost anyone here. Except those of us who take from this the lesson to disobey any command from a police officer to touch your weapon for any reason, even to "DROP" or surrender it.

I notice that no-one, so far, is willing to touch the truth and logic of my argument. Only blindly stating the officers were in fear of their life. No doubt they were. But that was a stage THEY set, a scene about which they had all kinds of choices about how to play it out. They chose wrong.
Click to expand...

From the information that is available, which often is inaccurate from news accounts alone, if indeed the victim had all of the different times to avoid this conflict, in my opinion, it appears that he brought it upon himself.

If asked to leave by a property owner: LEAVE. If you are taking xanax and morphine, DON'T CARRY a gun. If confronted by police, DON'T touch your gun and especially don't point it a police officer.

If someone is pointing a gun at me, I will shoot.

The real issue of discussion is whether the reports are accurate or not. Unfortunately, that becomes difficult to judge from a distance. But if the reports are accurate, I believe he brought this upon himself. I suspect that if there is any verdict in favor of the victim in the civil case, it will most likely be offset by the actions of the victim. Some cases are won, but the monetary damages are only $1.00.

It will be interesting to see if we hear anything on this case in the next few years, usually it takes quite a bit of time for the civil case to work it's way through the system. Tragic event no matter how you look at it.
 
It is a sad situation that the CCW holder placed in motion...period.

IF you are a CCW or current/retired LEO...it doesn't matter !

You MUST listen to the uniformed Officers AND DO EXACTLY as they say !

Had he done that, he would have been proned out, handcuffed....ID'd and probably released with a trespassing ticket.

He chose poorly and paid the ultimate price.

IF you are going to drink and/or use prescription drugs....leave the guns at home !

IF you think you are going to tell the Uniform Cops anything...you are wrong !

You DO NOT EVER reach for your firearm to "Surrender it" or you can count on being SHOT !

You can run your mouth about civil court and burden of proof until the cows come home.....but you will NEVER bring that poor foolish man back to life !

Everybody gets to second guess and monday morning quarterback what the cops decisions that were made in a matter of seconds....from the brass to the victims wife...but you cannot reverse what happened.

The PD responded to a man with a gun call. Until he is controlled, restrained and then disarmed.....the Cops have the DUTY to do exactly as trained and protect themselves. The CCW holder SHOULD have followed the Officers instructions....and he would be alive.

I hope this sad situation opens the eyes of those who CCW....Listen and Live !

CCW permits are great....as is the responsibility. To the Cops responding, you are an ARMED CRIMINAL until proven otherwise. Follow their instructions and everything will be resolved according to the law. Go for the gun.....
YOU WILL DIE...real simple .

Identifying yourself as a CCW holder MAY lower the stress level BUT just go along with the Cops...it could be SWAT or Barney Fife...but go along with their instructions and LIVE to tell about it !
 
oldcspsarge said:
CCW permits are great....as is the responsibility. To the Cops responding, you are an ARMED CRIMINAL until proven otherwise. Follow their instructions and everything will be resolved according to the law. Go for the gun.....
YOU WILL DIE...real simple .
Click to expand...
Really?

Not even a "possible" armed criminal? What ever happened to that basic legal precept of "innocent until proven guilty"? What about due process? What about "probable cause"?
 
You MUST listen to the uniformed Officers AND DO EXACTLY as they say !
Click to expand...


Exactly.

What ever happened to that basic legal precept of "innocent until proven guilty"? What about due process? What about "probable cause"?
Click to expand...

The street is not a courtroom. :rolleyes:


WildyoucarryagunopenlybepreparedtoobeythedirectionsofofficersthatstheobligationofthelawabidinggunownerifnotinfactthelawinsomejurisdictionsAlaska ™©2002-2010
 
You MUST listen to the uniformed Officers AND DO EXACTLY as they say !
Click to expand...
Even if those simultaneous commands from multiple officers conflict with each other, make no sense, or are in fact impossible to comply with. These officers share none of the blame. Got it.

If asked to leave by a property owner: LEAVE.
Click to expand...
AGAIN. He wasn't ask to leave.
 
Last edited:
Even if those simultaneous commands from multiple officers conflict with each other, make no sense, or are in fact impossible to comply with. These officers share none of the blame. Got it.
Click to expand...

You were there? Wow!:cool:

WildlookslikewehavetwosetsofmondaymorningquarterbacksplayinginthefogAlaska ™©2002-2010
 
Wildalaska said:
You were there?
Click to expand...

No, but he can read transcripts, I'm sure, just as I can.

Have you?

911 Transcript said:
14:16 (Unidentified Officer’s Voice(s) in Background): “Put your hands where I see them now, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground...”
Click to expand...

"You want I should freeze or get down on the ground? Mean to say, if'n I freeze, I can't rightly drop. And if'n I drop, I'm a-gonna be in motion." :D

(And really, the mall ninja... sorry, "Loss Prevention Technician" informing the 911 dispatcher that he was in "full observation" of the suspect was just too twee.)

Yeah, Scott could have aborted this whole thing by taking his business elsewhere, or just done the right thing in the first place by not been out & about and heeled while on opiates, but none of that excuses the rest of the goat rope and trainwreck that Costco's mall ninja and Quickdraw Mosher made of the affair.
 
Cna we tone down the sarcasm guys? It's leaking out of the screen and onto my keyboard and may ruin it.

Even if those simultaneous commands from multiple officers conflict with each other, make no sense, or are in fact impossible to comply with. These officers share none of the blame. Got it.
Click to expand...
You were there? Wow!
Click to expand...

While the sarcasm was inflammatory I believe the statement is not entirely inaccurate. From the sounds on the 911 call and from what the eyewitness statements and media have reported (if it is 100% accurate) there was little time for compliance from first instruction to first shot.

Allegation from the girlfriend: he was disarming. If you ask me that's a stupid thing to do in front of escalated armed individuals, but it may have been a logical conclusion to the individual

Allegation from the store employees: man was short tempered, seemed unstable both mentally and physically. Because of the cocktail used to curtail his pain I can see how he would have loss in motor control leading them to believe he was "on something," which he was. The part they jumped to conclusions about was that without any sort of expert opinion other than how they perceived his actions in conjunction with the sensitivity of the general public of certain locals to firearms leads me to conclude that the initial impression was an overreaction on their part correlated by the 911 dispatch call seemed as though security didn't have all the information or had been fed only part of the story as often happens when told from person to person.

Allegation from LEOs: man drew gun, pointed at officers, they responded by firing to protect themselves and the citizens behind them. Not much to pick apart, what you hear is what you get. Some eyewitnesses say that they didn't see a gun, one said he saw "sunglasses and a pen" on the ground, some said there was a gun, most were, IMHO, unreliable as they only saw what happened after the shots were fired. So we must take the officers word for it basically.

Allegation GF kind of correlates with the LEO version in that he was disarming and had gun+holster in his hand. In high stress environments your memory gets kinda funky. Example: a man was held up at an ATM and the robber runs off with his cash. He reported to police it was a stainless/chromed "Luger" pistol that the thief used, but the security camera showed it was a black "Luger" (looked like a Luger, might have been a Ruger Mk1). Your brain can insert things that aren't true. The little information that was passed on to police from the store probably exacerbated the situation as it seemed an unstable man with a concealed firearm was rampaging through CostCo. Some of his decisions (if the facts were portrayed correctly) did not make sense to me personally, like ripping open unopened packages of bottles to see if they would fit in a cooler. I'm not sure if that's how it went down or if he was going to buy the bottles anyway and wanted to see how many would fit in the cooler instead of randomly grabbing some unopened merchandise and ripping it apart.

I think mistakes were made on all sides: man takes his prescription narcotics and makes the decision to CC that day (something I wouldn't do anyway), Costco employees not making clear what the expectations were (merely telling a man that the company doesn't like firearms on the premises is not an order to vacate said premises), LEO showing up assuming the man had committed some crime (otherwise dispatch wouldn't have sent them) and placing themselves at odds with the suspect.
 
Have you?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I have.

Now on the other hand no one here sat through the testimony and heard the witnesses, observed their demeanor, and made an evaluation of their credibility. That sort of makes this thread a morass of speculation based on each posters personal weltanshauung, and the only folks qualified to judge sat o the coroners jury and made their decision.

Of course in this litigious society, a civil jury will eventuallyhear it. All these folks do is want to sue, aided by their bloodsucking ambulance chasing shysters.

Wait hang on, they arent bloodsucking ambulance chasers this time, they are champions of liberty defending the oppressed open carrier.

Hows that for sarcasm.

WildsonowletsboycottcoscoAlaska ™©2002-2010
 
Wildalaska,

Now who's reading stuff into what was said? ;)

I called it a "goat rope" and a "train wreck" and it most certainly was. Do you see what happened as a preferred outcome for any of the participants?
 
Wid Alaska - You don't have to witness something to have an opinion. Your "logic" is bizzare. I don't feel the need to travel to Korea to witness the rampant starvation widely reported and seen on smuggled video tapes to believe that living there is hell on earth for the average citizen. Here we had witness testimony transcribed, and as noted, the 911 call(s). It's O.K. to have an opinion under the circumstances. Having the LEOs make inconsistent commands and then shooting the victim for attempting to "drop his gun" in it's holster when ordered to do so is perverse. In your world very few people would be able to say anything about anything as most people have lives and would not sit through an entire cornorer's inquest in order to form an opinion. Your point of view is odd to say the least. Since I missed WWII (My dad served and was a witness but I'll ignore what he says based on your logic because I was not there and I'm never going to be able to form an opinion about Hitler because I never witnessed him) I do agree with with you about the "ambulance chasers" in general and as a recovering "ambulance chaser" I will bet the farm that the victim's family will get a significant amount of $$$. You work for a fantastic outfit from what I've read but never witnessed it but would buy from you all based on your fine reputation/products. I still want to know why you would have a quote from a convicted pedophile as a tag line? I know, I did not "witness" him download the child porn0 but he admitted he did so - and therefore I have an opinion about "your" pedophile.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top