West Point grad gunned down in Las Vegas for carrying in Costo.

[daddyo]

It's pretty easy to see, on the other hand, that you're so eager to put this guy on a pedestal that you're willing to completely ignore basic facts about this shooting.

Oh, and what "facts" would those be? The ones according to the LVPD?

Open your eyes.

[DaveTN]

Oh, and what "facts" would those be? The ones according to the LVPD?

Open your eyes.

The family has dropped their lawsuit against the PD, and filed a wrongful death suit against Costco and the employee that called the Police. Common practice when you don’t have a case. They will get an out of court nuisance settlement, the attorney will take most of that, and the case will be over. This is why businesses post. Costco did nothing wrong, but they will either have to go to court or write a check.

[daddyo]

The family has dropped their lawsuit against the PD, and filed a wrongful death suit against Costco and the employee that called the Police. Common practice when you don’t have a case. They will get an out of court nuisance settlement, the attorney will take most of that, and the case will be over. This is why businesses post. Costco did nothing wrong, but they will either have to go to court or write a check.

Doesn't surprise me that they dropped the case. Cover-ups are hard to prove.

[TMF]

Doesn't surprise me that they dropped the case. Cover-ups are hard to prove.

Sounds to me that there was no shortage of witnesses. This all went on during a mass exodus of the establishment. If this was a coverup then that would mean a lot more people would have to be involved than the PD. I don't know what happened, but the article posted is clearly slanted against the PD. I'd be interested to read the PD's side of the incident as well as some of the other factors involved, such as drug use of the deceased along with coroner's report.

If the only information I had about this shooting was the article I'd believe that this was manslaughter. However, there is other information out there that challenges this article; enough, apparently, to stop the family from suing the PD.

[DaveTN]

Sounds to me that there was no shortage of witnesses. This all went on during a mass exodus of the establishment. If this was a coverup then that would mean a lot more people would have to be involved than the PD. I don't know what happened, but the article posted is clearly slanted against the PD. I'd be interested to read the PD's side of the incident as well as some of the other factors involved, such as drug use of the deceased along with coroner's report.

If the only information I had about this shooting was the article I'd believe that this was manslaughter. However, there is other information out there that challenges this article; enough, apparently, to stop the family from suing the PD.

There is plenty of information in the story about the Coroner’s inquest. They only thing they are alleging now is what the caller said and how the situation was relayed to the dispatched Officers. I have seen absolutely no info on a recording or transcript about that.

[TMF]

There is plenty of information in the story about the Coroner’s inquest. They only thing they are alleging now is what the caller said and how the situation was relayed to the dispatched Officers. I have seen absolutely no info on a recording or transcript about that.

The article makes mention of the coroner clearing the shoot as justified (not sure how a coroner can do that) but no mention of drugs in his system.

This is more what I was referring to:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/testimony-focuses-erik-scotts-use-prescription-dru/

Here we see that perhaps there is more to the story than cops just gunning down a permit holder. Even an independent witness testified that he seemed "out of it" when officers confronted him. I don't think this man had any intention of harming the police, I think he was probably just really intoxicated and unable to process the situation and understand where is actions might lead. Hindsight being 20/20 and all, it's easy to see that perhaps he wasn't a threat.

However, the responding officers don't know that. If the witness testimony was accurate, anyone of us would have been justified in shooting him regardless of the circumstances. Those responding officers didn't know what was going on. All they knew is there was an armed threat and that threat produced a weapon in a manner interpreted as hostile. A tragic situation all around; for the family and I'm sure for the officers that put him down.

[daddyo]

Too many unanswered questions..... missing evidence...... Costco can't come up with the surveillance video...... conflicting eye witness accounts.... Scott's Kimber Ultra was found on the ground STILL HOLSTERED.

I believe that this was a bad shoot, the LVPD knew it, and did what was necessary to cover it up and protect their own.

[DaveTN]

Too many unanswered questions..... missing evidence...... Costco can't come up with the surveillance video...... conflicting eye witness accounts.... Scott's Kimber Ultra was found on the ground STILL HOLSTERED.

I believe that this was a bad shoot, the LVPD knew it, and did what was necessary to cover it up and protect their own.

Here’s more information on what happened. There are links to several days there.

http://www.lasvegass...s-inquest-day3/

Also…. There are recordings on that site of an unknown caller to 911, a store employee to 911, and the entire audio of the dispatch and the units responding. I couldn’t make out much of the 911 recordings they are really lousy audio, but the dispatch audio is clear. It’s a typical man with a gun call, no one seems real excited, the dispatcher is calm and tells the Officers no shots have been fired, she tells them the man was advised the store has a no guns policy and refused to leave. There just is nothing out of the ordinary there up to the point of an Officer calling “Shots Firedâ€.

I have to assume his gun was still in the holster because the IWB clip holster came with the gun when he pulled it. There are plenty of witnesses that said he pulled the gun and pointed it at the cop.

There is just nothing here to suggest that this was anything more than a MWAG high on drugs, refusing to leave the store, and either unable to understand and follow instructions, or he intentionally committed suicide.

Would you wait to shoot if you had a man pull a gun on you while you had him a gun point?

[mikegideon]

Would you wait to shoot if you had a man pull a gun on you while you had him a gun point?

No

[Guest 270win]

Sad situation. Seems like the guy drew a gun on the police and that is what got him shot. Can't blame the LEO for shooting in self defense.

[BryanP]

The story itself is terrible but written to incite rage.

You've just described most of the articles published on WorldNutDaily.

[daddyo]

Sad situation. Seems like the guy drew a gun on the police and that is what got him shot. Can't blame the LEO for shooting in self defense.

If he drew on the police, how do you explain the fact that his weapon was found on the ground still holstered?

How do you explain the fact that there were eyewitnesses there who said that he was trying to comply with the commands issued by LEO, despite the additional fact that the commands were conflicting because more than one officer was yelling at him?

Edited July 5, 2012 by DaddyO

[DaveTN]

If he drew on the police, how do you explain the fact that his weapon was found on the ground still holstered?

How do you explain the fact that there were eyewitnesses there who said that he was trying to comply with the commands issued by LEO, despite the additional fact that the commands were conflicting because more than one officer was yelling at him?

The gun was in an IWB with a single clip. I would assume it came out with the gun when he pulled it. The witnesses said he pulled the gun and pointed it at the Officers.

Listen to the information transmitted to the Officers. It was calm, there was no “active shooter†implied. The dispatcher even said he had not threatened anyone and had not pulled the weapon; it was in the rear of his pants.

The detail Officer even told the other responding Officers to kill their lights and sirens when getting close to the store. He said “let’s don’t get this guy any more excited than he already isâ€. They ask to start medical to stand-by. They secured the parking lot.

The dispatcher told them the male inside the business is acting erratic, throwing merchandise around, possibly high on unknown drugs. She told them the suspect was being argumentative with the manager when ask to leave and told him he was a Green Beret and allowed to carry a gun.

Again… I don’t know that the guy was going to try to shoot a cop or anyone else. But he was too intoxicated to function or follow directions, according to a witness he stumbled inside the store and his girlfriend caught him. The witness said that he said “I guess I really am messed upâ€. Another witness said he heard Scott say to his girlfriend that he shouldn’t be in the store when he was drunk.

This wasn’t a case of a permit holder open carrying; this was a case of an intoxicated person acting irrational and armed with a gun. Scott strapped that gun on intoxicated and went out, he wasn’t legally carrying. How is this the cops fault?

People are responsible for their bad acts; his cost him his life.

Edited July 5, 2012 by DaveTN

[daddyo]

People are responsible for their bad acts

The LVPD wasn't responsible for theirs; in fact, they got away with it.

[TMF]

The LVPD wasn't responsible for theirs; in fact, they got away with it.

More than 60 witnesses testified during the inquest. Many of those were either Costco employees or patrons. Unless all 60 witnesses were involved in this "cover up" I would say that the officers were justified. In fact, this is what the lead investigator into the shooting had to say:

Detective Barry Jensen was Thursday’s other witness. Jensen is a homicide detective assigned to investigate the shooting.

Jensen said he has investigated about 70 police use-of-force incidents in the last 10 years but doesn’t recall any having as many witnesses as this one.

The family of the deceased was allowed to present their own witnesses. So far the only witness that has supported the claim that Scott was complying appropriately with officers' demands is the girlfriend of the deceased. She did not testify, nor did the family manage to get anyone to testify in support of her original claims. Why?

I have to say, I was intrigued by this story due to the deceased's background, as it doesn't fit the behavior witnesses claimed (to include the testimony of 3 of his doctors). But some people fall, and some fall hard. I think this story is a tragedy. I don't believe Scott had any intention of being a threat to those officers that shot him, but his behavior and actions would lead any reasonable person to fear for their life and they acted appropriately. If he hadn't been under the influence at the time of the incident he would probably be alive. IMO, he was impaired to the point that he couldn't process the situation or the orders being given to him.

Hell, even a clerk who he encountered an hour before the shooting said he couldn't fill out simple paperwork because he was so impaired and that his girlfriend had to do it for him. This clerk went so far as to inform her supervisor of Scott's behavior. If he couldn't fill out simple paperwork how would he be able to process the situation he landed himself in? Ultimately he is at fault. This is an example why you aren't allowed to carry while under the influence.

I think this situation is tragic for all, but blaming the officers for what any reasonable person would do doesn't make sense. Yes, his pistol was still in his IWB when he was shot, but if someone pulls a gun out and points it at you are you going to be trying to process that? These officers had a split second to make a decision, which in their mind was a choice of Scott's life or theirs. If you found yourself in the same situation where someone acted as Scott did, you would be cleared of wrongdoing. Why should these officers be any different?

Edited July 6, 2012 by TMF 18B

[daddyo]

From an article dated Sep 16, 2010:

Others on the scene did not see it that way. Robert Garcia

the reports of police:

I was close enough to see this guy’s face, and to see his hands, and to see his body go down.

Walking just ten feet in front of Erik Scott, Garcia exited the Costco to see officers with guns drawn. He heard an officer yell: “Put it down! Get down!â€

Then he claims four shots were fired, and he instantly turned towards the victim:

After hearing the shots I see the guy going down. I looked at — I saw his hands. His hands had no gun in it. I looked on the ground because — just, I just did that. I looked down and I didn’t see a gun. I saw what I thought were maybe sunglasses. And a pen.

This matches up with several other eyewitness claims that officers William Mosher, Joshua Stark, and Thomas Mendiola fired nearly immediately after shouting conflicting commands at Scott, giving him little or no time to respond. Four other witnesses within 20 feet of the store’s entrance all agree that Scott never brandished a weapon or made a move that could be interpreted as brandishing a weapon.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/gunned-down-in-vegas-what-really-happened-to-erik-scott/

[DaveTN]

From an article dated Sep 16, 2010:

Others on the scene did not see it that way. Robert Garcia

the reports of police:

I was close enough to see this guy’s face, and to see his hands, and to see his body go down.

Walking just ten feet in front of Erik Scott, Garcia exited the Costco to see officers with guns drawn. He heard an officer yell: “Put it down! Get down!â€

Then he claims four shots were fired, and he instantly turned towards the victim:

After hearing the shots I see the guy going down. I looked at — I saw his hands. His hands had no gun in it. I looked on the ground because — just, I just did that. I looked down and I didn’t see a gun. I saw what I thought were maybe sunglasses. And a pen.

This matches up with several other eyewitness claims that officers William Mosher, Joshua Stark, and Thomas Mendiola fired nearly immediately after shouting conflicting commands at Scott, giving him little or no time to respond. Four other witnesses within 20 feet of the store’s entrance all agree that Scott never brandished a weapon or made a move that could be interpreted as brandishing a weapon.

http://pjmedia.com/b...-to-erik-scott/

Robert Garcia specifically said he didn’t see Scott at the time he was shot. He saw him when he hit the ground and he had nothing in his hands. He said there was no gun only what he thought was a pair of sunglasses and a pen. I don’t see Robert Garcia’s testimony in the stories. The family had an attorney by then why did they not make sure Garcia testified?

What do you think happened to the gun? Are all the other witnesses that saw it lying? If they are all lying why would they say it was in a holster? If you are implying the cops planted it, why would they leave it in a holster?

The source you are quoting says:

Scott did not violate any laws in carrying his weapon in the store. It is quite possible that Erik Scott was gunned down without having committed so much as a misdemeanor crime.

Is it legal to carry a gun in Nevada when you are so loaded you are stumbling and can’t function properly?

Like TMF 18B I when I read the story that he was an Army Officer who was a West Point graduate things just didn’t sound right. He told a store employee he was a “Green Beret†and allowed to carry a gun. I was not in Special Forces and have never met a Green Beret, but I have worked around Navy Seals and Marine Force Recon. That statement didn’t sound like something the Special Forces Officers I knew would say to a civilian. From what I can tell he was not Special Forces.

Lying about being Special Forces, refusing to leave the store, carrying a gun while intoxicated, ripping merchandise out of the package, acting bizarre; none of those things warrant a death sentence. But when you combine all of them with grabbing for a gun while cops have guns pointed at you; the outcome will not be good.

It was a tragic outcome; but Erik Scott set everything in motion when he put that gun on intoxicated. Unfortunately he paid for that mistake with his life.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Oh, I didn’t mean to imply you were, I apologize if you took it that way. I just have never seen a shooting thread take 180 turn in 10 posts.

It goes from a story that looks like it was written by the dead guys family attorney, to the story you have that offers quotes from eyewitnesses and Doctors court testimony.

Just goes to show we somtimes jump in too fast.

The writing of the originally posted article is proof that extremism exists on both sides of the line. If he was indeed on the mentioned medication I believe that his carry permit is Null in Void as you are not allowed to be under the influence. Secondly, a business (not arguing right or wrong) has the right to limit firearms carry in their store. However, I would be curious to see the sign (or lack there of) posted at the entrance. Lastly, If he was a West Point Grad, and served he would know that the last thing you do is touch your weapon when there are officers pointing weapons at you. Innocent or not hands up behind your head and let them do their job then you can go ahead and plead your case with the store manager you had come to an agreement with. It's all about education, but again if you are on narcotics then you shouldn't have had a weapon with you anyways.

If the Family dropped the charges that tells me that they did not have a case.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Too many unanswered questions..... missing evidence...... Costco can't come up with the surveillance video...... conflicting eye witness accounts.... Scott's Kimber Ultra was found on the ground STILL HOLSTERED.

I believe that this was a bad shoot, the LVPD knew it, and did what was necessary to cover it up and protect their own.

Still holstered because he didn't reach for it or because when his hand went down to his waist the Police fired? It's Easy to want to blame the police. God knows that they have made their mistake in the past and will in the future. However, with the amount of Witnesses it's hard to believe that the courts would ignore their testimonies. I have trained members of the LVPD and I will tell you the threats they see everyday has them prepared for many situations. The two police officers shouting conflicting commands is clearly a blunder on the police. However, this man should have left when first confronted in the store, and anyone with a CCP knows that if there is a police pointing a weapon at you NEVER REACH FOR YOUR WEAPON.

[Guest 270win]

Yeah it doesn't matter if the gun is holstered or not. In that kind of situation you should not reach for your weapon because that is posing a threat to others.

Think about it this way. Let's say you own a liquor store. Someone starts to draw a gun on you while you are working. What would you do? I doubt many are going to care if it is holstered or not. You are just going to think some stranger is about to rob you.

Also it is important to know that signs on private property have no fine behind them in Nevada. A business can put them up out there but at most a store owner or manager just can ask you to leave.

Nevada has a lot better firearms freedom than Tennessee. You can conceal with a license, open carry without a license, or keep a loaded pistol in your car without a license. Plus add all the public land you can hunt on or shoot on as long as it is safe.

Edited July 6, 2012 by 270win

[daddyo]

Think about it this way. Let's say you own a liquor store. Someone starts to draw a gun on you while you are working. What would you do? I doubt many are going to care if it is holstered or not. You are just going to think some stranger is about to rob you.

Apples to orangutans. Not even in the same category.