Las Vegas Costco shooting ruled justifiable

[Wildalaska]

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?

I try not to judge or offer my opinion on all these wonderful little tete a tetes between idiots we have called to our attention, preferring to sit back bemusedly, especially when its 7:30 am, pitch dark and Arsenal is playing Chelsea, but since you (and only for you) asked, may I respond by saying your adjectives of "goat rope" and "train wreck".....

Are far too kind, although best suitable for a family Board.

Now we will go through the inevitable civil trial, replete with the truth lost in the lawyer fog of law, for now the allmighty dollar is on the table and the pockets are big.

My philosophy: Dont be enough of a jerk so as to have other jerks hurt you due to mutual jerkness.




WildpackmyshootingbagathalftimeAlaska ™©2002-2010

 

[Wildalaska]

Wid Alaska - You don't have to witness something to have an opinion. Your "logic" is bizzare.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.

Really? Are you saying there is no difference between the blind man feeeling the sun on his shoulders and concluding the sun is up and determining the motives and indeed actions of someone from something you have read or have been told second hand?

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.

Ya kinda lost me there pilgrim

But Didier Drogba just scored for Chelsea. 13 goals. If I was gay I'd have a poster of him on my wall. You can see the fear in the eyes of defenders when he bears down on goal. And the sun is rising

WildthisismyxanaxthisismygunAlaska ™©2002-2010

 

[johnbt]

"There's a very provocative series of posts over on the Confederate Yankee blog"

A lot of it seems to be downright one-sided, biased and over-the-top speculative. Lot's of 'we don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the worst because cops are liars'

 

[ZeroJunk]

My problem with this whole deal is that if the Costco employee had not seen the pistol, nothing would have happened. Nothing that I read indicates that he ever threatened anybody or brandished the weapon. Some eyewitnesses testified that he did not pull the guin on the police or go for it at all. I sus pest we have all done little exercises in one class or another where some action was taken and different people where asked to describe the action with some almost comical variations in what was seen or heard to have transpired. If there is no video of the incident then it will be hard to prove one way or another. Personally, I think the cops panicked. (Yes, I understand the obligatory put yourself in their shoes.) I don't understand automatically taking the side with the LEO's.

 

[Tamara]

A lot of it seems to be downright one-sided, biased and over-the-top speculative. Lot's of 'we don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the worst because cops are liars'

That's an interesting charge to level at the author of those posts, given that he was a police officer for 20 years.

And I certainly don't see him "assuming the worst".

Would you say that the situation was handled optimally by store personnel and responding units?

Do you think that, given the almost certainty of a pending seven-figure lawsuit, the LVMPD has an understandable interest in painting the conduct of its representatives on the scene in the most favorable light possible?

Nobody's gonna sue the cops or the mall ninja, except in the most pro forma of fashions, because we all know where the deep pockets are here, and to expect that the deep pockets in question would not immediately go into full damage control mode is bordering on naive.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Strangely, the lawyer for the Scott family claimed to have 20-25 witnesses that said Erik Scott did not draw his gun on the cops, but when the cops asked him for his witness list, he refused to give it, not wanting his witnesses subjected to the coroner's inquest because he already knew it would be a circus. Apparently, he is saving them for the civil suit.

Strangely, even Scott's girlfriend noted that he drew his gun and she was with him, but thought the cops were wrong for shooting him, since he was obviously not going to shoot the cops.

Except for the witnesses that the lawyer would not produce, nearly all of them that saw the shooting saw Scott draw his gun after being ordered to the ground by the cops and the cops responded in an appropriate manner to stop the threat.

As for listening to what the uniformed cops commanded and complying, there was some controversy early on that Scott was confused by what they ordered. Strangely, none of the witnesses reported hearing the cops order Scott to draw his gun. So while he may have been confused about showing his hands and getting on the ground, none of the commands were for his gun.

Scott may have been confused, very confused. He apparently was not of the mind to be able to fill out a Costco membership applicaiton successfully without help from his girlfriend. He told a clerk that he was a Green Beret (which he wasn't).

Drawing your gun on the cops when being ordered to the ground is never a good idea.

 

[Al Norris]

Despite what has been said about the reporting in "Confederate Yankee," Mike McDaniel has presented a very even handed report, considering the facts as he knows them. The ongoing plausibilities he brought up, did in fact change as new information was made available.

Now, if someone would please explain the shot to the armpit, it may or may not change my opinion as to what actually happened. Oh, was it ever established which armpit (right or left) was shot?

 

[Tamara]

So while he may have been confused about showing his hands and getting on the ground, none of the commands were for his gun.

This statement doesn't seem to quite jibe with the following, from the transcript I read:

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...”

Do you suppose that a man who was, in your words, "confused, very confused" might become even more confused and attempt to "drop it" as ordered?

Also, most of the testimony I read seems to agree that his heater was still in its clip-on IWB holster, with gun and holster together on the ground. Is it possible that the "confused, very confused" Mr. Scott was attempting to remove the pistol from his belt in the one-one-thousand-two-one-thousand between the initial challenge and the first shot?

In retrospect, do you think that this could have been handled better by anyone there, or are you satisfied with the way events unfolded?

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Do you suppose that a man who was, in your words, "confused, very confused" might become even more confused and attempt to "drop it" as ordered?

It seems to me, and yes, I've read the transripts, that the events went down like this, in very rapid succesion, sometimes simultaneously/overlapping.

Officer sees suspect.

Officer tells suspect to turn around and sees gun in waistband when suspect turns.

The following happens in very short order, less than a few seconds total time:
Officer yells "Show me your hands", Suspect may or may not comply

Suspect says "I have a gun"

Officer yells "Get down on the ground"

Suspect pulls gun out of waitband

Officers yells "Drop it"

Suspect points gun toward officer

Officer fires two rounds

Other officers are not certain who has fired and also fire several rounds.


These orders from the officer are not contradictory, they are responding to the rapidly unfolding situation.

It's like reading a story where an officer says "Have a seat in the back of my car." and then says "Alright, get out of the car." Those two things are contradictory but did they happen 5 minutes apart or 2 seconds apart?

Contradiction is situationally based.

"Show me your hands!"... "Get on the ground." Not contradictory. Hands shown, get down. Rather than get down, suspect draws gun. "Drop it!" Also not contradictory, something has happened. Suspect has drawn gun rather than "Get on the ground!". A new order is justified and shooting becomes justified when the gun is pointed at the officer.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Well, if the 1911 type pistol photographed at the scene per the coroner's report was still in the holster per the coroner's report it is hard for me to see how he pointed it at them. The officer testified that he did not realize the pistol was still in the holster.

You know that nobody pulls the holster and all. It is more likely that the guy was trying to surrender his weapon and the cop panicked and shot him.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Well, if the 1911 type pistol photographed at the scene per the coroner's report was still in the holster per the coroner's report it is hard for me to see how he pointed it at them.

Pretty easy to point a holstered gun if the holster is not attached to your belt and it wouldn't be terribly uncommon for a holster to not cover the trigger.

If you're the officer, are you going to wait to see if he shoots you THROUGH the holster? Are you even going to notice a holster in that moment? You see the gun in his pants, you see him pull it out, he points it at you... do you notice the holster? If so, do you assume that he can't pull the trigger on a holstered gun?

 

[ZeroJunk]

Pretty easy to point a holstered gun if the holster is not attached to your belt and it wouldn't be terribly uncommon for a holster to not cover the trigger.

If you're the officer, are you going to wait to see if he shoots you THROUGH the holster? Are you even going to notice a holster in that moment? You see the gun in his pants, you see him pull it out, he points it at you... do you notice the holster? If so, do you assume that he can't pull the trigger on a holstered gun?

Yeah, that's what bad guys normally do, pull the holster and all to shoot you.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Yeah, that's what bad guys normally do, pull the holster and all to shoot you.

Are you going to live or die on that assumption?

Good guys don't normally pull guns on officer AT ALL.... or destroy stores and make a scene that gets the officers called to begin with.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Are you going to live or die on that assumption?

A few years ago I watched an NC Highway Patrolman walk up to a man waving a pistol and take it away from him. I guess you have the nerve for the job or you don't.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I guess you have the nerve for the job or you don't.

Well, that not nerve, it's foolish.

It's also irrelevant. There were hundreds of more officers that shot the man that pointed a gun at them, and well they should have.

The guy pointed a gun at the police. It doesn't matter if it turned out to be an unloaded cap gun in a imitation leather plastic holster.

Don't point guns at police. You will get shot. It's stupid. Don't trash a Costco store. The police will be called. Don't combine various legal and/or illegal drugs and then carry a gun. The deceased chose to commit a long list of "Don'ts" and then paid the price for those choses. The officers did not choose. They were forced by the actions of the deceased.

 

[Tamara]

peetzakilla,

The guy pointed a gun at the police.

As someone said up-thread "You were there?"

While there seems to be a pretty strong consensus that he removed the holstered pistol from his waistband, there is no such consensus as to whether he pointed it or was merely trying to hand it over to the cops.

Regardless, making a move toward your gun is Not Smart these days, no matter how slowly and carefully you think you are doing it. If Johnny Law wants my gun on the pavement, he can come over and put it there himself; my hands are staying in the sky until everybody's calmed down...

As a thought experiment, try and hold these thoughts in your head at once:

1. The officers were legally justified in the shooting.
2. Costco and Las Vegas Metro are, to a greater or lesser extent, civilly liable for the escalation of the situation and subsequent death of Erik Scott.
3. Erik Scott screwed up in more than one way and got hisself shot.
4. The officers should be, if not fired, busted back to meter maids.

It is not impossible for all four statements to be true.

As an aside, I will note that Mosher has removed 200% more taxpayers from the rolls in Nevada in his short five-year career than 99%+ of cops do between the academy and retirement. Make of that what you will...

 

[Conn. Trooper]

And some people win the powerball. If that actually happened I hope there was more to the story or that cop needs to go paint houses or sell cars. Nerve has nothing to do with walking up to an armed man and taking the gun away from them.

This Trooper tried taking a gun away from someone and ended up getting shot and killed.
http://www.odmp.org/officer/653-investigator-ricky-j.-parisian

This Trooper tried talking a suspect he knew into giving up and also ended up dead.
http://www.odmp.org/officer/7765-trooper-gary-e.-kubasiak

When you are faced with the threat of deadly force, you need to respond.

 

[maestro pistolero]

You were there? Wow!

Since none of us were there, I'm not sure I get your point.

Some here are unwilling to acknowledge any shortcomings on the part of the responding officers. Acknowledging the police had a role in how this played out is not the same as them being criminally culpable.

What is perplexing, and deeply disturbing to me is the unwillingness to even consider how the mistakes that contributed to this outcome could be turned into the better training, protocol and policy. Am I to understand some of you folks think this was good police work? Really?

Scott is not blameless, but if this incident was properly handled, the man would be alive. There can little doubt about that. This was not a man who would willingly threaten police. He was put in that position by the conflicting commands, a fact that is uncontroverted, yet ignored here for some reason.

Could a person with a clearer mind have processed the chaotic orders better, disregarding the ones that made no sense? Maybe. Could anyone under that much stress and shock have the presence of mind to refuse to obey a command to drop a weapon not yet held in the hand? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[ZeroJunk]

And some people win the powerball. If that actually happened I hope there was more to the story or that cop needs to go paint houses or sell cars. Nerve has nothing to do with walking up to an armed man and taking the gun away from them.

Actually, I think he knew exactly what he was doing. He could just as easily have killed the man and been justified by any inquiry. It's called judgement.

There are risks and responsibilities involved in law enforcement which I assume a man or woman accepts when they take the job.

If one is so nervous and afraid that he kills a man within two seconds and doesn't even realize the pistol is holstered as happened in LV chances are he is not tempermentally suited for the job.


Maybe they should paint houses or sell cars.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Some here are unwilling to acknowledge any shortcomings on the part of the responding officers. Acknowledging the police had a role in how this played out is not the same as them being criminally culpable.

What is perplexing, and deeply disturbing to me is the unwillingness to even consider how the mistakes that contributed to this outcome could be turned into the better training, protocol and policy. Am I to understand some of you folks think this was good police work? Really?

I, for one, have not addressed whether this was "good" or "bad" police work.

There are two issues here.

1)Was the shooting justified in the instant that it happened?

2)Could/Should the officers have acted differently prior to pulling the trigger?

Number 1 is not a question of how we got there. It's a question of what was the appropriate response at that INSTANT in time. I don't believe (or disbelieve) the officers because they're officers. I make my judgement based on what I've read of the information available. I believe that at the moment that those officers pulled the trigger, they firmly and reasonably believed that they were in immediate danger of grave injury or death. At that very singular instant NOTHING else matters.

Number 2 is a question of how we got there. First off, that responsibility still rests firmly on the shoulders of the deceased. Second, we simply do not have enough information to make that judgement. How, you may ask, can I feel that we have enough information to answer one question and not the other? Because we must know precisely what was done, moment by moment, by everyone involved in order to answer that question. There is simply too much conflicting evidence and testimony to have a clear picture of exactly how we got there. Would I use this situation to train officers? Yes, I probably would, but that is not to say that the officers involved could (or could not) have done anything better. We simply don't know. The coroners inquiry is a question of CRIMINAL responsibility on the part of the officers. I simply can not see how they could be held criminally responsible for this outcome. That would require of level of either intent or WILLFUL negligence that is simply not justified by what we do know.