Las Vegas Costco shooting ruled justifiable

[Al Norris]

OhKay Dokay! How about we leave the "what ifs" and what happened elsewhere out of this thread and stick to the facts (as they pertain to this shooting) as we know them? Conflating other issues simply serves no purpose here.

Peetza, you keep saying that Scott was pointing his (holstered) firearm at the police. Got any proof of that? Fact is, we don't know. We have conflicting eyewitness testimony. We have the testimony to the officers themselves, which given the circumstances, could be just as conflicting as the other witnesses. Now this doesn't mean the police were not justified to shoot him. I know I wouldn't wait for him to point a gun at me. I probably would not "see" that the gun was still in its holster.

Hell, the autopsy itself was botched. Understandable if the coroner was not a trained forensic pathologist (hint - many aren't, despite what you see on CSI).

You folks should go back and read what Tamara posited:

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.

This whole thing appears to be a CharlieFoxtrot, all the way around.

 

[maestro pistolero]

. . . . That would require of level of either intent or WILLFUL negligence that is simply not justified by what we do know.

I would agree with that, but the rest of that paragraph is a tangle of contradictions I can't even begin to unravel.

I'm not saying they should be held criminally liable. I actually believe they were acting in good faith. But I believe they mishandled the situation terribly up to the the moment they had to shoot, and that their mishandling contributed to creating the need to shoot.

You simply cannot give multiple, confusing, ambiguous, and illogical commands in a high stakes scene like that and expect to get a good result.

How about this. . . you have your officers in place for cover, at the low ready and You (Sergeant, for example) AND NO ONE ELSE says:

"Sir, may we talk to you for a second, please keep your hands where we can see them ok? Thanks. We have a report from security that you are armed, and they are pretty worried for customer safety.

"Without touching it where is the weapon right now sir? Thank you. Now, keeping your hands where we can see them, could you help us out by turning around and putting your hands on the wall while we pat you for weapons?" Etc, etc. . .

If he went sideways, they would already have the drop on him and it would have ended like it did anyway. But we now know that wasn't this man's character, as he was clearly attempting to comply.

Now what would have been wrong with that?

 

[Tamara]

What I should have said is that officers did not give Scott commands about his gun before he drew it. Scott apparently...

I find it interesting that the word "apparently" doesn't show up 'til your second sentence. I presume then, that everything before that period can be classified as "definitely"? In other words, you were there or have seen the video, and the conflicting testimony can therefore be disregarded?

Yep, Scott.

Nowhere have I claimed that Scott did not screw up by the numbers. Does it remain your contention that everyone else involved acted optimally and the situation was resolved in the manner that led to the best outcome for Costco and Las Vegas Metro?

 

[tyme]

If those witness statements are an accurate recollection of what happened -- which is a big if -- then it sounds like he might have been trying to commit suicide by cop.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Peetza, you keep saying that Scott was pointing his (holstered) firearm at the police. Got any proof of that?

No, I don't, and I said before, I don't believe the cops just because they're cops. However, they ARE trained for these things. They ARE at least somewhat "inoculated" to these high stress situations. They ARE aware that they will, by definition, be providing witness testimony regarding the incident. Besides that, I have seen not one single reference that any one of these officers has been accused 0f lying about any previous situation.

Proof? No, it's not proof and I'm not their, or anyone elses, lawyer, this isn't a court of law and I'm not a juror or a judge. I'm going by rational thinking and "the odds", for lack of a better term and offering my opinion.

I can't prove anything. We do, however, have a long list of indisputable facts about this incident. We also have a reasonable idea about the work history of these officers. They are young and relatively inexperience but apparently reasonably proficient and honorable men. I infer this from the silence indicating otherwise.

All things considered, the testimony of the officers is likely to be more reliable than most any other eyewitness testimony. These officers are, by all appearances, good and honorable men. A good chuck of other witness testimony corroborates their story.

Knowing what we know about the officers and knowing what we know about the behavior and condition of the deceased, I find it to be particularly unreasonable to conclude that acted with malice.

Reading the 911 transcripts, I do not conclude that there were contradictory commands issued except POSSIBLY in the very, very last instant before the actual shots fired.

Is there a training issue? Maybe, but that's not the problem of the officers. They acted honorably and, likely, according to the best of their ability and knowledge.

If anyone needs "busting down" it would be the people in charge of the training that resulted in this tragedy.

 

[Wildalaska]

If those witness statements are an accurate recollection of what happened -- which is a big if -- then it sounds like he might have been trying to commit suicide by cop.

Which will form, I am sure, a part of the City's defense


WildamongothersAlaska ™©2002-2010

 

[Tamara]

We do, however, have a long list of indisputable facts about this incident.

If there's one thing we're short of here, it's "indisputable facts". If you don't believe me, pay attention to the inevitable civil trial circus.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

If there's one thing we're short of here, it's "indisputable facts".

Short on, yes, or we wouldn't even be having a discussion, but there are lots of them available. Obviously, not enough for the complete chain of events but we know a lot.

 

[maestro pistolero]

By and large, this has been a fairly civil disagreement here. Thanks for that, folks. It will certainly be interesting to see how it all shakes out over the next year or two. The family is not going to just let it go. No way.

I wouldn't expect Metro PD to share every policy or training change with the general public, but it would be nice to know, at some appropriate time, that they are at least looking at it from that viewpoint. As I pointed out, we have a LOT of gun toters here in Nevada, both open and concealed.

Any public discussion of training changes at this time could compromise the investigation, and expose officers and the department to additional civil liability. I understand that completely.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I find it interesting that the word "apparently" doesn't show up 'til your second sentence. I presume then, that everything before that period can be classified as "definitely"? In other words, you were there or have seen the video, and the conflicting testimony can therefore be disregarded?

LOL, were you there or have YOU seen the video? I am sorry am I not using enough weasel words for your liking.

Nowhere have I claimed that Scott did not screw up by the numbers.

Nowhere has anyone claimed you did.

Does it remain your contention that everyone else involved acted optimally and the situation was resolved in the manner that led to the best outcome for Costco and Las Vegas Metro?

Nope. It is my contention that had Scott not "screwed up by the numbers" as you put it, that the situation would not have gone south as it did. Scott's problems apparently started long before he ever got to Costco given the levels and numbers of drugs in his system.

Contrary to the Scott family lawyer, I don't see where Costco is at fault for calling 911 about their problematic customer (Scott). Having a customer shot in front of their store is definitely not the best possible outcome for Costco from a PR perspective, but Costco called the police and what unfolded is what unfolded.

I think the police could have arrived a LOT sooner. Was shooting Scott the best outcome? Considering the officers were in fear for their lives from a man who was drawing on them/pointing a gun at them, I don't see a problem with them shooting.

So as you said early on, Tamara...

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.

So to be fair, I could ask if you indeed know that Costco's person (I assume you mean the called to 911) is in fact a mall ninja and that Mosher really does have a quickdraw or not as you are using the descriptor to cast Mosher's gun handling skills in a negative light, but your cateorizations bring up a more interesting question. Since your disparaging comments seem to indicate that you think they did everything wrong, why do you think that? How do you think the events of the day should have progressed after Scott became confrontational about his gun in the store? Obviously Scott wasn't aborting anything, so given how Scott was reported to have behaved, how should everyone else involved have behaved?

 

[Al Norris]

Obviously Scott wasn't aborting anything, so given how Scott was reported to have behaved, how should everyone else involved have behaved?

OK... I really think that part of this little scenario is that what was reported, had a tendency to to escalate things to levels that weren't really there.

I can't fault the police that arrived. Scott was reported to have been tearing things up in the store. He was reported to be trespassing. He was reported to be ED. All of which may not have been true.

Did the 911 caller ever say that Scott was asked to leave? No, but the 911 operator assumed that was what happened, without ever asking the critical question, of the 911 caller, before telling the dispatcher that this was a fact.

The 911 operator was told that Scott was tearing open packages and throwing them around, by the 911 caller.

at 8:03 on the radio timestamp, the Dispatcher tells the responding officers: “The male inside the business is acting erratic, throwing merchandise around, possibly high on unknown type of 446-- narcotics or drugs.”

There appears to be no evidence of this. Had there been such evidence, I'm sure there would have been photos presented to the jury. However, by relaying this to the responding officers, does ramp the situation up.

at timestamp 8:16, Dispatch transmits: “...they are requesting CIT--Critical Incident Team--Male is possibly ED--experiencing “excited delerium.”

The 911 caller never said anything like this to the 911 operator. This was an assumption. Fact is, Lierley notes that the agitation levels of Scott seemed to be declining - information not transmitted from the operator to the dispatcher. Again, by hearing these things, the responders are getting a skewed picture and their level of response ramps up some more.

This, just to say that CostCo does have some liability here (through its agent, Lierley). As does the the 911 Operator, who jumps to conclusions and transmits those conclusions to the responding officers.

Yes, Scott has plenty of blame for this. But there is plenty of blame to be placed in other corners. As I said, this whole mess is a Charlie Foxtrot.

 

[ZeroJunk]

I, like others commenting, probably formed an opinion fairly quickly. After that, one just picks and chooses the evidence to support what he has already decided.

So, it will be interesting to find out what is determined in civil court from all evidence and accounts, if we haven't forgotten about it by then.

 

[johnbt]

"The family is not going to just let it go. No way. "

Too bad. Their relative got himself killed and now they want to make it somebody else's fault? Somebody else wasn't causing a scene with a gun and acting strangely.

When somebody (or two or three) is pointing a gun at you... stand very still and don't reach for your belt or pockets.

 

[therealdeal]

you gotta feel for the mama on this one. it seems like a senseless tragedy, and I think its pretty obvious the drugs played a part. I cannot put him down for that; scott has already paid with his life for his mistakes. There is no way of knowing if he was a daily user or just got messed up that day. I knew buddies in college who could party all night but the one day someone gave them a valium or zanaz or something they're drowning in their bowl of cheerios. Lots of good points from Both sides, but maestro is correct when he points out there is Always ways to learn from incidents. They know if they were using conflicting commands; stuff happens in the heat of the moment, but you learn from your mistakes.

 

[therealdeal]

"The family is not going to just let it go. No way. "

I am staying out of this one for the rest of the thread but JOHNBT: I am not positive, but I believe these officers are covered via the state w/regards to the lawsuits. As in, the family can still go the civil courts route(which they definately will), but the dept will provide the attny who works for the force and the individual officers won't pay one cent. As I said, I might be wrong but I am federal and thats the way it works every time. I can vouch for that. If you act 'out of the scope' of your authority, you get Nothing but these guys have been cleared.

thats the way they do it at least federally. You have convicted felons suing federal officers everyday. anybody can file charges+sue people(guys serving life sue all kinds of people and sometimes the jury gives them big lawsuit victories). as long as you act 'within the scope of your employment' you are covered. if not, you're Screwed

 

[maestro pistolero]

"The family is not going to just let it go. No way. "

Too bad. Their relative got himself killed and now they want to make it somebody else's fault?

This is the black and white thinking that I just don't get. He didn't get himself killed without a lot of help from a few different people. As Al has pointed out, there is plenty of blame to go around. Many people had to set this stage before this scene could play out. Remove any one component, and Scott lives.

Start with the exaggerated 911 call, move on to the dispatcher's enhanced opinion and characterization of the behavior, then on to the officer's decisions on the scene prior to the shooting, and finally to the moment of the shooting which, only at that moment became unavoidable.

 

[johnbt]

"He didn't get himself killed without a lot of help from a few different people."

But he got himself killed, didn't he?

What he did is about like playing in traffic in the dark and then blaming and suing the drivers that run you over.

All because he made a move and reached for the gun, or his belt, or his pocket, or something other than standing very,very still and then following the instructions given by the people pointing guns at him.

Unfortunately, he made a terrible mistake and doesn't get a do-over.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Just getting into this. Lots of good points. The thing that has caught my attention the most is the drug usage. I really think that puts the Scott family's side of the case in great jeopardy. The guy was abusing narcotics and had an almost lethal amount in his bloodstream and that goes straight to his state of mind and that will be hard for the Scott family to overcome with any jury. No one should carry when impaired (in this case a long term addict). Scott was and that was the biggest error he made IMHO.

 

[maestro pistolero]

All because he made a move and reached for the gun, or his belt, or his pocket, or something other than standing very,very still and then following the instructions given by the people pointing guns at him.

Please read the thread with the bolded part in mind.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Start with the exaggerated 911 call, move on to the dispatcher's enhanced opinion and characterization of the behavior, then on to the officer's decisions on the scene prior to the shooting, and finally to the moment of the shooting which, only at that moment became unavoidable.

With this, I can agree. Any "blame" though, falls to a very great degree, on only Scott and then secondarily on the dispatcher. I still consider it to be a distant "second" though.

As I've said many times before, he who carries a gun also carries a greater responsibility to avoid conflict than he who does not carry a gun. Scott failed in this responsibility, severely and in multiple ways. Ultimately, Scott initiated this situation.

The responding officers must be able to trust the information being reported from the dispatcher. Second guessing these things can get the officers killed. The information presented to them may have been inaccurate, although that's still one assumption among many, but they have to believe it. It appears to me that the officers acted reasonably, based on what they "knew" from the dispatcher.

Once again, once they got to the actual "shoot, no shoot" decision, I believe it was too late. The hands had been played.