View Full Version : WP grad killed at Costco in NV because he was carrying CCW
Erik Scott was an acquaintance of mine from years past. He was carrying a weapon, someone freaked out and the police overreacted and killed him. It's a travesty - especially now that the police seem to be lying. If you read in the comments there are plenty of people who were there and saw the entire thing. His girlfriend was with him, he was minding his own business browsing Costco. He was an entirely decent and wonderful man.
I'm just sick over it and I fear for good men and women who carry legally.
3 Officers Involved in Shooting at Summerlin Costco
Posted: Jul 10, 2010 1:32 PM PDT Updated: Jul 12, 2010 10:14 AM PDT
Video Gallery
ON THE SCENE: Man Killed in Officer Involved Shooting
2:23
Erik Scott Erik Scott
LAS VEGAS -- Three Las Vegas police officers were involved in a shooting at a Costco near Charleston and Pavilion Center in northwest Las Vegas.
Police have released few details about the shooting, but say the suspect was shot by three officers while exiting the store, He died from his injuries. Friends and family members say the suspect is Erik Scott, a West Point graduate, and in his 30's. One friend said Scott was at Costco to pick up a prescription.
"The individual was shot -- its out in the open area right near the tire store. He was transported to UMC where he was pronounced dead at that point," said Metro Capt. Patrick Neville. "He had a weapon on him. I know the question is going to come up. The weapon is laying right out in front of the store. We also found another weapon when we transported him to the hospital."
The incident happened just before 1 p.m. Saturday. Police were called when Costco workers saw the suspect destroying merchandise inside the store. Someone noticed the suspect had a gun and store security evacuated customers and employees.
Police say when they approached the suspect, he drew a weapon and pointed it at officers. After refusing to drop the weapon, three officers fired multiple rounds, striking the suspect numerous times.
Costco employee Brenda Franklin says the scene was frightening. "We were told to immediately evacuate the store. No one told us why. They just told us to get out of the store. We immediately dropped what we were doing and exited. As soon as I got to the front door, I heard about five shots," she said.
There were no other reports of injuries. Officers credited the Costco security staff for evacuating everyone out of the store in a timely manner.
The officers are on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. The confirmed identity of the suspect will be released by the Clark County Coroner's Office.
http://www.8newsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=12785291
Another article saying basically the same thing - no witnesses saw anything to merit a shooting:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/slaying-of-army-veteran-shocks-friends-98223884.html
Please accept my condolences for your loss.
I guess this adds emphasis to the need to maintain good concealment.
I had just been reading this on GlockTalk where the thread is a bit longer, there was a post containing what claimed to be a second hand account from a friend of his girlfriend saying that your friend reached to pull his shirt up or something along those lines and was shot. It is a sad story, hopefully the security tapes are released so we know what happened.
I’m sorry for your loss Shar :(
Rest in peace Mr. Scott. Prayers out to family and friends :(
Police say when they approached the suspect, he drew a weapon and pointed it at officers. After refusing to drop the weapon, three officers fired multiple rounds, striking the suspect numerous times…
It appears someone is trying to CYA… Gun shy Po Po these days seem to me a whole lot more dangerous than civilians with CCW permits.
I guess this adds emphasis to the need to maintain good concealment.
It pays not to print, SmartCarry®
The Reaper
07-12-2010, 15:05
RIP.
Sorry for your loss, Shar.
You can bet there is a video if it happened at the entrance to the store.
I will wait for the investigation.
TR
Utah Bob
07-12-2010, 15:24
I'll wait until an investigation is conducted. Not enough confirmed info yet.
Very sorry for the loss of your friend.
dr. mabuse
07-12-2010, 15:25
RIP. :(
I’m sorry for your loss Shar :(
Rest in peace Mr. Scott. Prayers out to family and friends :(
It appears someone is trying to CYA… Gun shy Po Po these days seem to me a whole lot more dangerous than civilians with CCW permits.
It pays not to print, SmartCarry®
A lot of this case will depend on what he was actually doing in the store to warrant the Police showing up. What the Police were told over their Radios when called. What they thought was the suspects intent.......
If he lifted up his shirt so they could see a Gun. Thats pretty much the definition of brandishing a Weapon. Police don't have to wait until a Weapon is pointed at them. Police Academy's teach Police to be much more aggressive then they did in years past.
If police approached you. Never show them a Weapon on your body. I would not even tell them I had a Gun. Simply do what they say. Then when they have control of you. Then tell them your carrying. A lot more to this story thou I'm sure.
This has obviously been bothering me a lot - I called and talked to my husband about it and he said the same thing I think a lot of you are thinking -
He should have put his hands up. No questions, no hesitation.
It just bothers me that the entire thing went down the way it did. There has to be video and I'm sure it will be very enlightening. I haven't seen him in about 15 years, but I don't think he's changed that much based on what I've heard from other friends and read. I think he was a good guy who assumed that the cops would immediately understand he was a good guy so he didn't posture himself as he should have in this situation - as a bad guy.
The lesson I bring away from it is that it doesn't matter how "good" you are or how right you are or how otherwise peaceful and normal a suburban situation you are you in - when guns and police are involved you comply - no explanations, no questions. I guess I could totally see myself trying to explain the situation or continue to try and convince someone of my "goodness" as things escalate so wildly out of control. The facts might bear out something else, but I honestly believe one mistake (not complying to the letter) killed him.
It just makes me sad - especially for those who love him that are left behind to deal with the mess.
Also, I hope this case doesn't become some gun banning rally cry. I really like knowing that good, trained people - like those on this board - are out there with weapons in case things go bad.
LibraryLady
07-12-2010, 15:58
My condolences, Shar, to you and all affected by the loss of this man. :(
LL
A lot of this case will depend on what he was actually doing in the store to warrant the Police showing up. What the Police were told over their Radios when called. What they thought was the suspects intent.......
If he lifted up his shirt so they could see a Gun. Thats pretty much the definition of brandishing a Weapon. Police don't have to wait until a Weapon is pointed at them. Police Academy's teach Police to be much more aggressive then they did in years past.
If police approached you. Never show them a Weapon on your body. I would not even tell them I had a Gun. Simply do what they say. Then when they have control of you. Then tell them your carrying. A lot more to this story thou I'm sure.
Sir,
Is that true for all PD's? If so that scares the s*** out of me because I have already gone through 2 dui checkpoints when I was CCW. I informed the officer that I was carrying and it wasn't a problem, but that makes me nervous. What about open carry then because I do that when I'm hunting.
Shar.
I'm sorry for your loss, I just lost one of my best friends 2 weeks ago in a car wreck. I feel your pain of losing your friend in a tragic way.
greenberetTFS
07-12-2010, 16:29
Shar,
I feel sorry for the loss of your dear friend............... God Bless,Rest in Peace Warrior............:(
Big Teddy
Shar please accept my condolences on this loss. It is a horrible situation. :(
Officers identified in shooting at Costco; lawyer says man did not pull gun
http://www.lvrj.com/news/man-did-not-pull-gun-on-police-at-costco--lawyer-says-98279344.html
".........Officers William Mosher, 38, Joshua Stark, 28, and Thomas Mendiola, 23, shot and killed Erik Scott, 39, near the exit of the store. Mosher, the veteran of the group, has been with the agency five years. Stark and Mendiola have been with the department for less than two years............."
and
".....Saturday's shooting was not the first for Mosher, who in April 2006 was one of two officers who shot and killed a suspect in a car......"
Shar,
My condolences to you, on the loss of your friend.:(
Sir,
Is that true for all PD's? If so that scares the s*** out of me because I have already gone through 2 dui checkpoints when I was CCW. I informed the officer that I was carrying and it wasn't a problem, but that makes me nervous. What about open carry then because I do that when I'm hunting.
This is general, not in reference to the topic at hand,
fng13, no police offer, actually no american has to wait for you to actually point a gun at them to respond with deadly force. The threat of going for one is enough. I may butcher the exact legal wording, but if a person of a sound mind justifiably feels threatened with severe or lethal bodily harm they may defend themselves with up to deadly force of their own.
A LEO cannot blast you because you have a gun on your hip, but if he thinks you are reaching for it to shoot him with, he has the right to defend himself, just like any private citizen really.
To the OP I apologize for not expressing my condolences, I am sorry for your loss, no matter how close or distant they may have been.
Our condolences on the loss of your friend Shar.
My condolences on the death of your friend, Shar,
Rest In Peace.
BigJimCalhoun
07-12-2010, 20:22
I wonder if there were conflicting commands from the police officers on the scene - one telling Mr. Scott to do one thing and someone else commandng him to do something else.
SA was FUBAR all around.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Here's the version of the story I received: http://www.lvrj.com/news/slaying-of-army-veteran-shocks-friends-98223884.html.
I went to a very small high school with Erik and his younger brother, Kevin. Erik was 3 years ahead of me, but he was a standup individual then, a mentor to a friend of mine while at USMA, and a friend and an inspiration to most in our school.
I know it's been a long time since I've seen him, longer than Shar, but I think it would be ABSOLUTELY out of character for Erik to have destroyed merchandise or brandish a weapon to individuals in the store--causing the police response. I guarantee this will be deemed a bad shoot, which means nothing at this point because we have lost a great individual.
My prayers go out to his family and friends.
This is a terrible situation all the way around, my condolence and sympathy to the family and friends of Mr. Scott.
Sierra Bravo
07-13-2010, 10:29
My friend is on the investigating team
He is a retired Army Ranger
this should be interesting
I'll pass along any details that are relevant
RIP
Green Light
07-13-2010, 11:42
I am so sorry for your friend's death. Terribly tragic.
Utah Bob
07-13-2010, 15:54
My friend is on the investigating team
He is a retired Army Ranger
this should be interesting
I'll pass along any details that are relevant
RIP
Thank you.
DJ Urbanovsky
07-14-2010, 09:09
I would not even tell them I had a Gun. Simply do what they say. Then when they have control of you. Then tell them your carrying. A lot more to this story thou I'm sure.
This part could, at the very least, lead to your losing your permit here in NE. If you've got a CCW permit, you're required by law to inform the police at the beginning of any official contact. It'll also come up on their terminal when they run your ID. Again, that's here in NE. But I'd do the same thing anywhere. At the onset of official contact, keeping hands visible and at no time reaching for the weapon: "I'm required by law to inform you that I have a concealed carry permit and that I am carrying a firearm. What would you like me to do, sir?" Then follow the cop's instructions.
Shar, sorry for your loss.
Sir,
Is that true for all PD's? If so that scares the s*** out of me because I have already gone through 2 dui checkpoints when I was CCW. I informed the officer that I was carrying and it wasn't a problem, but that makes me nervous. What about open carry then because I do that when I'm hunting.
Shar.
I'm sorry for your loss, I just lost one of my best friends 2 weeks ago in a car wreck. I feel your pain of losing your friend in a tragic way.
Your talking about two totally different circumstances. Read my post again carefully
Update
LINK (http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12809131)
I-Team: Father of Man Shot by Police at Costco Speaks
Sierra Bravo
07-19-2010, 22:17
[QUOTE=nmap;339471]Update
LINK (http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12809131)
I-Team: Father of Man Shot by Police at Costco Speaks
Yes lots of conflicting reports both official / non - official
the investigating team is still sifting through a lot of details.
everything like this goes through the coroner's inquest first.
I can tell you one version is he went into the store picking fights with people, management called police and evacuated store, Metro showed up and apparently Erik lifted up his shirt showing his Kimber .45, supposedly drawing it. This is the basis of the initial "Official" report.
This is a statement from my friend on the investigating team
"Let me assure you. My agency will do the right thing. If the officers were wrong, they won't just lose their jobs, they will go to prison. "
I'll pass along anything relevant
I'll pass along anything relevant
Thank you very much.
Well someone has transcribed the radio chatter from the call.
Something interesting comes up around the 13:18 mark. I have marked it in bold.
Audio can be downloaded here:
http://www.filedropper.com/costcoois1
Transcript:
Dispatcher: Units in V3, a 413 at Costco, 801 S. Pavillion Center. The male is inside the business to the rear of, has a 413 that's tucked into the back of his pants. We're still landline. (6:53)
K916: K916 back on channel. (7:03)
D: K916 (7:04)
AIR5: AIR5, we're going to go to the Costco first. (7:11)
D: AIR5, copy. (7:14)
2X12: 2X12 (7:20)
D: 2X12 (7:21)
2X12: You can disregard the air unit, I see customers coming out (related to a seperate 407A) (7:25)
D: 2X12 copy. K914, if you could be en route with AIR5 on the 413 at Costco in V3, 801 S. Pavillion Center. (7:35)
K916: K916, you can assign me as well. (7:42)
D: K916, copy. (7:44)
D: 2V16, if you'll also be en route on the 413 at Costco, 801 S. Pavillion Center. The male inside the business is acting erratic, throwing merchandise around, possibly high on unknown type of 446. (8:03)
2V16: 2V16 copy, from the Suncoast. (8:07)
D: 2V16, they are requesting CIT. Male is possibly ED. 767, did you copy? (8:16)
767: Put me en route to that please. (8:19)
D: 767. (8:21)
2DP62: 2DP62, clear me and show me en route. (8:25)
D: 2DP62. (8:26)
767: 767 (8:37)
D: 767. (8:38)
767: Go ahead and have medical en route also, just to stand by for us. (8:41)
D: 767, copy. (8:42)
2V55: 2V55, can you clear me B-baker and show me en route to Costco. (8:53)
D: 2V55, affirmative. (8:56)
2V16: 2V16 en route code. (8:58)
D: 2V16 (9:00)
2V55: 2V55, same traffic. (9:04)
D: 2V55 (9:05)
351WC: 351. (9:11)
D: 351 (9:12)
351WC: Have those units shut down code when they get close. Let's not get this guy more exicted than he already is. (9:18)
D: 351, copy. Units, shut down code when you get close to the Costco. (pause) (9:23)
D: Units en route on the 413 at Costco, 801 S. Pavillion Center, suspect's described as a White male, 32, 5'8, medium build, red hair, wearing a gray t-shirt, blue jeans, and white shoes, break. A black 9MM is tucked to the rear of his pants. (pause) (9:53)
D: 767, could you advise where you'd like medical to stage for now? (10:46)
767: Just have them stage, uh to the nearest intersection to that Costco. If you could have them not roll code, that'd be great also. (10:57)
D: 767 copy. Did you want other units to shut down code? (11:02)
767: I just want everybody to shut it down before they get close to that area; I don't want to spook this guy. (11:08)
D: Okay, copy. All units, justs reminding to shut down code when you get close to the area. (11:13)
767: 767 (11:18)
D: 767 (11:20)
767: I need a few more units that could head to that area also, so that we can shut down that parking lot so that nobody goes in or out of there. (11:28)
D: 767, copy. (11:31)
2X12: 2X12, you can assign me. (11:33)
D: 2X12 (11:35)
2X65: 2X65, same traffic. (11:43)
D: 2X65 (11:45)
351WC: Control, 351, where's the CP going to be? (11:49)
D: 767, can you advise? (11:54)
767: I'm not even close to there right now, so if we have a unit that's in there that could set up one real quick, that'd be great. (12:01)
2V54: 2V54, I'm arriving in the Costco parking lot, where do you want me? (12:07)
D: 2V54, at this time uh, I guess heading up a CP. (12:16)
AIR5: AIR5, did you have any further at all? (12:22)
D: It looks like the subject is still inside the business, argumentative with the manager who asked him to leave, telling him there's no 413's allowed inside the business, break. The manager is a Green Beret and is allowed to carry a 413. He's throwing merchandise around; he's still in isle 126 in the camping area, break. He appears to be fidgety. A female joined the male. She's described as Hispanic, 30s, black long hair, wearing black tank and blue jeans. Security's going to be standing outside the business in front of, to wait for officers to direct, break. He's walking through the camping area towards the front of the business on the main isle. (13:18)
2V54: 2V54, did you want me to stop people from going in the business? (13:22)
D: Uh 767, that's affirmative. Stop in or out? (13:26)
767: Affirm. (13:28)
D: V54, affirmative, uh V54, did you want a red? (13:32)
2V54: Hold off for a moment. (13:34)
D: Okay, copy. (13:35)
2X65: Control, 2X65 (13:37)
D: 2X65 (13:38)
2X65: Run this by the WC and Sarge. If we could get the management and employees to start slowly evacuating people out of the business without alerting anybody, that'd be a great idea. (13:50)
351WC: Control, 351WC, absolutely. (13:53)
D: Acknowledge that. (13:57)
2V54: 2V54, manager says it's escalating inside and he's still talking loudly and destroying merchandise. (14:06)
D: 2V54, copy. 2V54, are you able to get security started on exacuations? (14:14)
2V54: Affirm (14:16)
D: Okay, copy. (14:17)
2V16: 2V16, I'm out with 2V54. (14:55)
D: 2V16 (14:57)
Unknown bit of traffic (14:59)
D: All units, code red this channel. Officers arriving on the 413 at Costco, 801 S. Pavillion Center. (15:07)
2V16: 2V16, we need units to clear these people out of here. We're attempting to evacuate right now; get as many people out as possible. (15:45)
D: 2V16, copy. (15:47)
351WC: 351WC, where's the CP? (16:45)
D: Uh 2V54, can you advise location of CP? (16:50)
AIR5: AIR5, they're both right in the front entrance to the store. (16:55)
D: AIR5, copy. (16:57)
784: 767, 784 I'm arrived. What can I help you out with? (17:07)
767: You can set up the CP, that'd be great. (17:10)
784: : Copy, I'll set one up. (17:15)
AIR5: AIR5, are we still landline with anyone who has eyes on this guy, because there's a lot of people pouring out of the store. I just want to make sure he doesn't slip out. (17:28)
2V16: We got 2 officers here at the front doors watching everybody come out. (17:36)
D: 2V16, copy. AIR5, it looks like we're still landline. It looks like the male is still being watched by inside personnel due to him ripping open packages. They're concerned of a 414A. (17:49)
2V16: Copy, we've got a very orderly evacuation going on right now. We'll try to get all these people out of here and then figure out what we're going to do next. (18:00)
D: 2V16. (18:01)
2V54: He's directly in the middle of the building. (18:08)
D: Okay, copy. Confirming suspect's directly in the center of the building? (18:14)
2V54: ___ isle. (18:16)
D: You broke on the isle, could you re-advise? (18:20)
784: 784, copy location for IC. (18:31)
D: 784 (18:32)
784: It's going to be set up at the northwest parking lot at the Red Rock Casino across Charleston. It'll be the Costco command. I'll be incident commander until the arrival of 351WC. (18:46)
D: 784 copy. 351WC, incident command at northwest parking lot of Red Rock Casino across Charleston. (18:55)
AIR5: Control, AIR5, we need 1 unit to take the north side of the Costco please, right off of Pavillion Center so they can keepy an eye on the back and the east side. (19:02)
2V16: (yell) 2V16, we got shots fired, shots fired! (19:11)
D: 2V16, copy. Anyone down? (19:12)
2V16: Roll medical. (19:13)
D: 2V16. (19:15)
767: Go ahead and make the notifications. (19:19)
2V16: Notify supervisor. (19:21)
D: 2V16, copy. (19:22)
351WC: 351WC, I'm arrived, south end of the building. Is it safe for everybody else to enter the building? (19:28)
D: 2V16, can you advise? (19:30)
2V16: He pulled a 413 and pointed it in my direction. (19:38)
D: 2V16, copy. (19:40)
767: 767, can yu go ahead and make your notifications, please? (19:43)
D: 767, copy. (19:45)
767: Shut that parking lot down, please. (19:47)
D: Units arriving on the 413, shut down the parking lot. (19:51)
AIR5: They've got him out front, they're taking him into custody. Hold the traffic. (19:57)
D: AIR5, copy. Subject is out front, taking into custody. (20:01)
767: 767, let's make sure nobody else exit's that Costco right now. We may need to pull witness statements. (20:17)
D: 767, copy. Units, make sure no one else exits the Costco, they may need for witness purposes. (20:24)
784: Copy that they're taking him into custody. We're going to move the CP closer to the Burger King directly across from the Costco. (20:35)
D: Copy that, CP will be moving closer to the Burger King (20:39)
"............D: It looks like the subject is still inside the business, argumentative with the manager who asked him to leave, telling him there's no 413's allowed inside the business, break. The manager is a Green Beret and is allowed to carry a 413. He's throwing merchandise around; he's still in isle 126 in the camping area, break. He appears to be fidgety. A female joined the male. She's described as Hispanic, 30s, black long hair, wearing black tank and blue jeans. Security's going to be standing outside the business in front of, to wait for officers to direct, break. He's walking through the camping area towards the front of the business on the main isle. (13:18).............."
Dispatch was saying a lot about what the individual was doing.
Lots of talk about what he was doing inside.
When are we going to see the inside tapes? What was the "....throwing merchandise around;....."? Did he have something in his hand that he was going to buy but after being asked to leave he threw it on the counter?
Wonder who the manager was? Green Beret? Was the manager the one at fault? Pumped up the situation and gave the police a false impression of what was going on inside?
Well, from what I've been reading is that "there was a 'technical issue' with the security camera equipment that has made the tapes either 'unavailable' or of 'not good enough quality to be of use'"
The 2 most popular theories I've heard in the carry community where I'm from are:
An employee noticed the man carrying, asked the man to leave, the man stated that he has a permit for his weapon and does not need to. The employee went and told the manager that the man was being difficult. The manager then called the police and either told them what he thought would just be a "simple white lie" to get them there faster.
and
The manager was notified of the man carrying or noticed himself, then he decided to confront the man and was rebuffed and decided to teach the man a lesson.
Either way this stinks heavily.
ETA:
http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12816105
Sacamuelas
07-20-2010, 08:32
I interpret the tapes differently. I am MORE suspicious of the victim than of the police response after reading this small piece of the puzzle. I won't condemn the victim yet, but I think it is ignorant to place a lot of suspicion and blame on the employees or police as well.
I usually find that this forum's members have a disgust for armchair commando/ quarterbacking based on initial after action reports and subsequent days worth of research and background perspective. That information is not what the officers responding to this report had in their decision making process.
The victim's father seems to smell some fishy behavior on his son's part as well based on his statement. It is a very tragic story and outcome, but I'm betting there is a LOT more to this story. We will see. :munchin
FWIW, if you are carrying concealed ( as I do often), the rules of the game are tilted much more towards Big Boy rules. You give the a responding officer no choice. Deep down, I think everyone on this site knows the ramifications of "allegedly" acting in such a fashion when armed and getting into conflict.
.....I usually find that this forum's members have a disgust for armchair commando/ quarterbacking based on initial after action reports...................
As had been talked about before - the officers responding only had the information that was given by dispatch - which was gotten from the Costco employees.
The first key to all this is the inside security tapes showing his actions. Real funny how they are not available.
RIP Mr. Scott.
Sorry for your loss, Shar.
You can bet the video at the entrance to the store will be controlled now.
On the Costco/ police issue:
I will agree with you, I am somewhat suspicious about the actions of the man. When/ if confronted he should have asked to speak to a manager, and if they still requested he should have left instead of gotten into an argument (if that is what happened).
I don't enough about what happened once the police got on scene to make a decision on that issue. I don't know if anyone but those involved in the incident do.
But something stinks on the side of the Costco people (technical issues with the equipment for example).
On carrying:
I believe that when carrying (I prefer OC to CC) you must act as a representative of the carry community, and you imagine that all your actions are being scrutinized twice as hard as if you were not carrying (even if concealed). Not to say that one should be nervous about carrying, but one must have better SA and a better thought process.
If someone sees you acting like an a hole/ miscreant while carrying you are more likely to have an unpleasant encounter with someone and/ or the police.
If someone sees you acting in a grown up/ professional manner you are more likely to have a pleasant encounter with someone and/ or the police and may change a few minds about the "crazy gun carrying community."
dr. mabuse
07-20-2010, 10:17
I wasn't there, theoretically speaking only, Someone with a CCW/CHL and a weapon on them, if asked to leave, needs to leave immediately. Period.
Refusing to leave can turn into a criminal trespass with a weapon charge.
It will be interesting to see what really happened as best as can be determined without the tapes.
As to OC, there is no element of surprise at all. If I were a crook and really wanted what someone was carrying, I may take it after they are no longer breathing, no matter how much testosterone and SA they claim to have. Hope OC folks are experts at weapons retention.
To each his own, YMMV. ;)
Back to the service road.
Sacamuelas
07-20-2010, 10:43
RIP Mr. Scott.
Sorry for your loss, Shar.
You can bet the video at the entrance to the store will be controlled now.
The above should have been typed by me first. I sometimes get ahead of myself when trying to get a post before I have to get back to patients.
Pete, I agree that the tapes should be released. If they are ruined.... then that would add to the conspiracy side of the argument. However, I imagine that the manager was very quickly questioned and detained for the investigation. Other employees would have been watching the video as well. I would imagine it difficult for the manager to destroy the tapes after the shooting. possible... but difficult.
No matter what... It is a tragedy for all involved. RIP
(Not wanting to hijack the thread, but discussing a somewhat related issue.)
Refusing to leave is not really an option, that is agreed. But asking to speak to a manager before leaving can bring up something that can cause a business to stop posting and change their stance on the issue of allowing/ disallowing carriers in their business.
Here in MN the most one can get for simply refusing to leave (as long as one doesn't aggravate the situation if LEOs are called) is a $25 trespass ticket, nothing more, no loss of permit, or other charges (again, unless the situation is aggravated). But still it is best to leave.
The debate on CC vs OC is an endless one, and barring law forbidding one or the other, a pointless one. I prefer OC in a shoulder holster (so, part time CC also), and occasionally in a OWB because it is more comfortable for me. Ive tried a couple custom IWB holsters, but nothing really comfortable.
There have been stories of criminals thinking of robbing someone/ someplace but upon seeing someone OCing have not gone through with it, or given up.
Most of the anti OC stories have been about uniformed police officers, who usually either were the main target, or had to inject themselves into an already charged situation.
But above all else SA is a mandatory part of a skill set either when OCing or CCing.
ETA:
I would also like to add my condolences to Mr. Scott's friends and family.
My neighbor's car was broken into in a Walmart parking lot. She calls the police. The police arrive and my neighbor, pointing up to a security camera, says at least they have a film of the crime. The police officer (HPD) just smiles and responds, "Maam, not one in twenty of those things work. Some were never even intended to work." This is referring to cameras OUTSIDE only.
Yea, the problem is that they don't have or cant view the footage from inside to back up the reports of him acting erratically either.
I appreciate everyone's messages of sympathy, but my upset over the situation isn't just because he was an acquaintance of years past. My first thoughts when I heard about the incident were for those I know and love who are CC/OCs.
I immediately wondered how easy it would be to "frame up" a situation where an otherwise law-abiding person was on the wrong end just because they were carrying. Regardless of the outcome of this situation - I'm certain that ill-feelings towards those who carry will be on the rise and that concerns me greatly.
I went to my local Costco the other day and spent a good amount of time looking outside the store, at the entrance of the store and anywhere remotely logical - and I didn't see posted anywhere a requirement that no weapons be on the premises. How does one know whether their weapon is "welcome" or not if it isn't posted? I faintly remember reading somewhere on this board about there being a requirement that when malls or the like do not allow weapons inside they must provide a location to check the weapons. True?
As a matter of course I'm guessing that those who carry do not regularly announce their presence with weapon to store management - so if it isn't posted... do you just assume you can carry? And, if it isn't posted and a random employee approaches you telling you that you cannot carry must you comply and exit immediately?
I hope this situation brings more clarity to the issues surrounding those with the legal right to carry in the minds of those of us who don't necessarily know the rules. Education can hopefully lead to preventing this type of incident from occurring again.
TrapLine
07-20-2010, 12:30
My neighbor's car was broken into in a Walmart parking lot. She calls the police. The police arrive and my neighbor, pointing up to a security camera, says at least they have a film of the crime. The police officer (HPD) just smiles and responds, "Maam, not one in twenty of those things work. Some were never even intended to work." This is referring to cameras OUTSIDE only.
I faced a similar situation when someone smashed out the window of my wife's car in a parking lot and stole her purse. I was surprised to hear the police officer say that the security cameras were of little use after I gave them a list of places the suspect attempted to use her credit card. I had to personally track the individual down by combining the footage from about ten locations. After all that, I realized how little concern there is for such property crimes even when the suspect is all but delivered on a silver platter. My wife is back in possession of the purse:lifter, and now believes me that you NEVER leave anything valuable in the cab.
My condolences to Mr. Scott's friends and family. It is a sad reminder of the SA we must maintain while carrying.
Sacamuelas
07-20-2010, 13:29
Shar-
State CC laws vary. In my state, there are defined places in the law that you can not carry for any reason (bars, courthouses, stadiums, fed facilities, state legislature, police stations,etc). It also states that private businesses can prevent carry if they place a easily readable sign at the entrance that can be viewed and read at a certain distance. These laws are printed out and given to you when you apply for a CCP. You have to sign a declaration that you have read and understand the law as written when you apply. I can still be asked to leave private property by any owner or agent of that business (business or personal) for any reason. To be confronted outright by store security, I would be quick to leave that establishment. I would be pissed (if there was no sign about CC),but I would leave instantly. I imagine I would never shop there again carrying or not.
If some person called the police ( private shopper or employee) due to imprinting of my weapon... I would be EXTREMELY cautious when the contact was made by store security or especially POLICE. Police do not have the option of running away if I scare them with my actions. They must intervene once contact is made and determine the situation. I wouldn't blame the police and I wouldn't blame the business for the interaction. I would very calmly talk and then follow directions from the police to resolve the issue. After all, if there was no sign then I am completely legal. I am very aware of the heightened adrenaline in people when they see or suspect firearms.
IMO, if you are carrying a firearm... you are accepting a higher responsibility to act mature and rational even when angry or unjustly provoked. You simply cannot act in a disturbed manner when dealing with anyone when you know you are carrying a deadly weapon. At least I wouldn't.
I'm trying not to speculate, but if I HAD to bet the ranch... I wouldn't be surprised to find out a pharmacy rx or something related did not set off this sequence of events. :( I've seen that sort of irrational response myself when either making accusations or refusing Rx's to someone.
Well Shar, laws vary from state to state on where and when one can carry.
Here in MN the law is that the location has to be posted a certain way (proper size and color sign, proper location, proper font, proper wording, etc.) for it to be considered "legally posted" so most of us here ignore the signs. For you to be going "against the law" even if it is posted correctly you have to be personally asked to leave by an owner or an agent (employee) of the owner of where you are.
Also here in MN, no land lord can restrict their tenants or tenants guests from owning or carrying firearms so office complexes and malls are out. So even though the Mall of America is posted (in the most non conforming way) and police will ask you to leave if you are noticed they can not charge you with anything for carrying.
In MN the only places you cannot carry are in court houses (without permission from the judge and/ or sheriff), k-12 schools (without permission from the principle), the capital area (without notifying the authorities by sending them a letter), and federal property. Most states have pretty much the same rules.
Places that can not post (such as the U of M) can not charge you with anything but trespassing, but they can kick you out. Students here can be expelled for even having a pocket knife on them much less carrying a handgun (or any other firearm as MN allows anything to be carried).
Utah Bob
07-20-2010, 17:55
The 2 most popular theories I've heard in the carry community where I'm from are:
An employee noticed the man carrying, asked the man to leave, the man stated that he has a permit for his weapon and does not need to. The employee went and told the manager that the man was being difficult. The manager then called the police and either told them what he thought would just be a "simple white lie" to get them there faster.
and
The manager was notified of the man carrying or noticed himself, then he decided to confront the man and was rebuffed and decided to teach the man a lesson.
Sounds like the "2 most popular theories" are that the store management was to blame.
Based on what evidence I wonder.:rolleyes:
It would appear that there are a Lot of witnesses. Hopefully after the investigators are done interviewing them a clearer picture of what went down will emerge.
Everything else is mere speculation/theory until then.
219seminole
07-20-2010, 20:24
At a store like Costco video tapes are likely a thing of the past. Equipment is digital now.
Utah Bob
07-21-2010, 08:38
At a store like Costco video tapes are likely a thing of the past. Equipment is digital now.
A lot of retail stores have never upgraded their security equipment. Or even repaired it.
PedOncoDoc
07-21-2010, 08:48
A lot of retail stores have never upgraded their security equipment. Or even repaired it.
That is working under the assumption that the equipment was intended to be fully functional in the first place.
The Reaper
07-21-2010, 11:21
Funny, I seem to see a lot of shoplifting cases where the primary evidence for the criminal prosecution is video.
Also used for verification to avoid/mitigate lawsuits.
Most warehouse or big box retailers have a video surveillance set-up that looks like a casino.
Anyone really believe that a nationwide retail store chain the size of COSTCO does not have functioning cameras inside and out?
TR
Anyone really believe that a nationwide retail store chain the size of COSTCO does not have functioning cameras inside and out?
TR
Not me. The risk of a slip and fall case alone is worth the security.
15+ years ago I was talking to a loss prevention manager for a Target in San Diego. He said that the loss thru shoplifting alone was $60k a month. The idea that the cameras aren't on doesn't wash with me.
Anyone really believe that a nationwide retail store chain the size of COSTCO does not have functioning cameras inside and out?TR
Agree, TR Sir!
And jw74 summed it up, literally.
My own opinion? I Will not armchair QB, as I was taught here long ago by AM not to do that, and it was/is a valuable lesson.:munchin
Holly
Stingray
07-21-2010, 22:05
Funny, I seem to see a lot of shoplifting cases where the primary evidence for the criminal prosecution is video.
Also used for verification to avoid/mitigate lawsuits.
Most warehouse or big box retailers have a video surveillance set-up that looks like a casino.
Anyone really believe that a nationwide retail store chain the size of COSTCO does not have functioning cameras inside and out?
TR
No Sir. Certainly seems suspect to me.
Sincerely,
DD: It looks like the subject is still inside the business, argumentative with the manager who asked him to leave, telling him there's no 413's allowed inside the business, break. The manager is a Green Beret and is allowed to carry a 413. He's throwing merchandise around; he's still in isle 126 in the camping area, break. He appears to be fidgety. A female joined the male. She's described as Hispanic, 30s, black long hair, wearing black tank and blue jeans. Security's going to be standing outside the business in front of, to wait for officers to direct, break. He's walking through the camping area towards the front of the business on the main isle. (13:18)
Let me first say sorry for the loss of your friend Shar.
My $.02 is there is a good possibility that it wasn't the manager saying he was a Green Beret, but rather Mr. Scott saying that he was, and that's why he could have a CCW. This dispatcher obviously had a lot of info coming in and could have relayed it wrong. In a city that size the dispatcher is getting the info from a 911 operator so it's 3rd hand.
I agree that if tapes come up missing there is something wrong.
Utah Bob
07-22-2010, 19:52
DD: It looks like the subject is still inside the business, argumentative with the manager who asked him to leave, telling him there's no 413's allowed inside the business, break. The manager is a Green Beret and is allowed to carry a 413. He's throwing merchandise around; he's still in isle 126 in the camping area, break. He appears to be fidgety. A female joined the male. She's described as Hispanic, 30s, black long hair, wearing black tank and blue jeans. Security's going to be standing outside the business in front of, to wait for officers to direct, break. He's walking through the camping area towards the front of the business on the main isle. (13:18)
Let me first say sorry for the loss of your friend Shar.
My $.02 is there is a good possibility that it wasn't the manager saying he was a Green Beret, but rather Mr. Scott saying that he was, and that's why he could have a CCW. This dispatcher obviously had a lot of info coming in and could have relayed it wrong. In a city that size the dispatcher is getting the info from a 911 operator so it's 3rd hand.
I agree that if tapes come up missing there is something wrong.
That was my impression also. Dispatch tapes frequently show errors made but as you said ther dispatcher is dealing with a lot of input and forwarding it. Things frequently get confusing.
6.8SPC_DUMP
07-23-2010, 20:16
Interceder offers real time news feeds to keep you updated: Link (http://interceder.net/i/Erik-Scott)
CoLawman
07-23-2010, 21:02
The dispatch logs certainly are confusing. I can only imagine how confusing the information was to the officers on the perimeter with all the additional information/misinformation they were receiving from lay persons on scene. The actions of this young man sure do not seem to square with the father's description of his son, nor the young man's resume. Tragic.
Leozinho
07-24-2010, 06:35
I didn't see this story until today. (See below.) I'm posting it because I was still under the impression that media was reporting they couldn't find a witness that said Scott drew his pistol. Now the paper has spoken to a few who said he did. Still tragic.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/man-killed-by-police-in-costco-shooting-remembered-at-memorial-98695649.html
Police said they have spoken to 40 witnesses, and more than a dozen said they saw Scott pull out a handgun. The Review-Journal has interviewed seven witnesses. Three said Scott drew a gun, but none said they saw him point it at police officers.
Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie on Friday urged the public to remain patient while his department investigates the Costco incident and other recent police shootings.
"In policing, one thing I've learned over the years is don't rush the processes," he said. "Let the processes work because they are there for a reason.
Ongoing development, FYI.
LINK (http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12862356)
LAS VEGAS -- Friends and family of Erik Scott, the man shot to death at a Costco store by Las Vegas police, are taking their message to roadside billboards.
The 38-year-old was shot and killed by three Metro officers on July 10th. Although the Coroner's Inquest on the case isn't until September 3rd, Scott's friends and family don't want the public to forget what happened. They are also hoping more people who may have witnessed the event will come forward.
"Our sadness has turned to focus at this point," said Scott's close friend Mike Pusateri. He says he is a man on a mission to make people remember what happened.
"Other families have gone through this inquest process and the story falls away. Until September 3rd, we're going to make sure that doesn't happen," he said.
Seven digital billboards with Erik Scott's picture are being put up around the valley. Scott's friends and family have collected the $3,200 from supporters on Facebook and an Internet site in his honor.
The billboards will be prominently displayed in high traffic areas of town. Organizers say the focus of the billboards is to show that while Erik Scott is gone, what happened to him is not forgotten. The billboards carry the message "Let the truth be known."
"People are engaged in this story, they want to understand what happened , they want to understand why he was shot seven times," said Pusateri.
Sheriff Doug Gillespie says the details of Scott's death, including the 911 call, will come out in due time.
"It's very important in cases like this where an officer uses deadly force and there is a death -- and we do have an inquest process -- that we stick to that process," said Sheriff Gillespie.
The hard drives containing Costco's surveillance video were sent to a lab in California for forensic work. Police say there is a glitch in the surveillance system that hasn't allowed them to view the video. Police say it could take weeks for the video to be seen if the incident was even captured on camera.
Pusateri hopes drivers will see the signs, and divulge key details of Scott's death, clearing his name. "They shot the wrong guy, his friends are committed and they're not going to stop."
The digital signs will be up for the next four weeks. Scott's friends say they're using other donations to start a foundation in his honor. One thing they want to fight for is legislation that would have a neutral party included in Metro's investigations.
Five-0, with all do respect; being a Inf/Cpt and a LEO, I am a bit surprised by your inconsiderate sarcastic tone. We have members here who knew him. Until such time that the investigation is concluded, please refrain from expressing your unsympathetic view-point.
Leozinho
07-24-2010, 12:10
Wait a minute. You mean the police did not murder a WP graduate for no reason other than their hatred for CCW?...and then conspire to destroy video evidence and engage in a massive cover up with COSTCO? You mean... Mr Scott was seen by a dozen witnesses who stated they observed him pull out a weapon when being told to prone out? So the police are not blood thirsty, homicidal, jack booted thugs out to suppress CCW folks? Geeze....Imagine that.
After all, everyone knows that on Jan 20, 2009 all LEOs became jackbooted thugs again overnight. (sarcasm off)
Edited to add:
Penn, I posted the above before I saw your comment. I think Five-0's comment is relevant, because the police were instantly vilified and convicted by the CCW crowd on the internet. Most voices here have called to wait until the facts are out, but there's still a tone in some of the posts that there's no way a West Point grad with a CCW permit could have done anything that led to the shooting. (Look at the first two sentences of the original post.)
You may, of course, delete my post if you think it's insensitive.
question for the LEO's reading this.
Does him "drawing" his weapon automatically clear you to fire?
Because drawing a weapon could mean more than pulling in an attempt to fire.
For example if he pulled his weapon out in order to surrender it. For sure that is not a good idea, but if that is the case does that change anything?
(I mean drawing it in such a way as it is clear his intention is to surrender it. I.e. weak hand up, hand on the gun held by finger tips etc...)
question for the LEO's reading this.
Does him "drawing" his weapon automatically clear you to fire?
Because drawing a weapon could mean more than pulling in an attempt to fire.
For example if he pulled his weapon out in order to surrender it. For sure that is not a good idea, but if that is the case does that change anything?
(I mean drawing it in such a way as it is clear his intention is to surrender it. I.e. weak hand up, hand on the gun held by finger tips etc...)
What was he told? Was he told to lift his shirt and show the weapon, was he told to keep his hands clear of any weapon he may have on him? Was he giving conflicting commands, I've seen that happen before.
I was not there and will not prejudge either the "suspect" or officers.
Leozinho
07-24-2010, 14:04
question for the LEO's reading this.
Does him "drawing" his weapon automatically clear you to fire?
Because drawing a weapon could mean more than pulling in an attempt to fire.
For example if he pulled his weapon out in order to surrender it. For sure that is not a good idea, but if that is the case does that change anything?
(I mean drawing it in such a way as it is clear his intention is to surrender it. I.e. weak hand up, hand on the gun held by finger tips etc...)
I'm not a use of force expert. Please, anyone, correct me if I am wrong.
I'll respond to this, only because based on your previous posts in this thread I believe you are trying to get a handle on how to interact with the police, rather than discuss the Costco incident.
No, "drawing" a weapon in a way that was clear that you intended to surrender your weapon wouldn't automatically clear one to fire. The question is whether the officers will correctly interpret your actions. When courts look at use of force, they don't expect officers to be perfect. They do expect them to be objectively reasonable. If police repeatedly and clearly tell you to keep you hands above your head, and instead you lower your hands and remove your weapon with your thumb and forefinger, then a reasonable person might still conclude that you intended to use that weapon, given the totality of the circumstances. One might say that it wasn't clear that the person was gripping the pistol in a way that rendered it 'safe.'
Or to take the argument further and to muddy the waters even more -- is the "thumb and forefinger fingertips" grip 'safe?' I say it isn't. I just experimented. I can draw my pistol with my thumb and forefinger, hold it at arms length in front of my chest as if to turn it over to someone, and I bet I can get a shot off before the average person that is pointing a gun at me can react. (The thumb and forefinger grip I used is nothing more than my regular grip, with my middle, ring and pinkie fingers extended, and action is quicker than reaction.) Knowing that, it might be reasonable to use force even if you saw the' 'fingertip' grip.
Incidentally, at some (most?) academies, officers are taught to disarm a subject prior to an arrest by placing the subject in a position of disadvantage (prone or on knees, facing away from the officer) and then an officer removes the weapon. I think it's safer than having the subject remove his weapon and place it on the ground, although there might be a circumstance when that's the proper thing to do.
Also remember that the courts won't look at hindsight when determining whether use of force was justified. So your educational background and CCW permit will be irrelevant, unless the officers knew about them at the time of the incident.
......... I know stuff about this shooting. If the officers involved end up going to jail for murder...I'll be the first to eat my hat. Posts in this thread indicate the belief that Mr Scott was murdered.............
So are you going to wait until all the facts are in?
So where are the videos from inside the store? Not working? Mighty convenient for Costco and the manager.
Seems the manager is the big question mark in this story. The story was he was rowdy inside, throwing stuff around. Anybody witness to the "crazy man inside"?
And both sides seem to be stacking up outside witnesses that support their side.
But there are a few things that trouble me. The store was asked to clear everybody out while the cops are outside. The individual is coming out with the other cutomers, peaceful like it would seem, since nobody was running and screaming, so he is with a group of people and the cops are the ones who start the ruckus.
Three guys screaming instructions in a crowd - seems it might take everybody a few seconds to react. WTF is going on.
Like others stated, I'll wait for the investigation and what people don't realize that these take time.
So I'm sure there will be alot of Monday night quarterbacking but that's expected.
There is an interesting dynamic occurring as a result of this thread, and it has to do with loyalties.
Service members and LE have much in common; some who have responded to this thread are both. In that regard, it is of some interest to note a level of base support for the LVPD by fellow LE officers, while at the same time most active, retired, and prior military seem to be questioning the circumstance of the shooting. Supporting if you will, the discipline training one would receive first at the Academy, and second as a line officer on active duty, logically concluding the impossibility of blatant disregard for Law Enforcement. The equation doesn't compute.
This taking of sides is to be expected, if this were a civilian forum, which it is not, I think the divide may be reflecting the disconnect between the LE community and the general populace, which includes service members, who are also reflecting the same separate characteristics of ringing the wagons around one of their own.
If this is a possibility, and with the damage done, we need to wait this one out.
DinDinA-2
07-24-2010, 22:10
Penn,
My observations as well. I just reread all posts, to confirm why I was so troubled by many posters, from the beginning. A rapid indictment of the police (before ANY facts had come in), an unreasonable expectation that all details of the investigation would be immediately presented to the media & public, and more theories about what may have occurred than I would expect from some members of this forum.
QPs-waiting for the facts
LEs-waiting for the facts, with loyalty
QPs with LE experience-waiting for the facts with loyalty
None of the above-sorry, you guys are all over the place-I would not want you judging my actions.
This event was indeed a tragedy, no question. Empathy and analyitical thought should be had by all.
I went to my local Costco the other day and spent a good amount of time looking outside the store, at the entrance of the store and anywhere remotely logical - and I didn't see posted anywhere a requirement that no weapons be on the premises. How does one know whether their weapon is "welcome" or not if it isn't posted? I faintly remember reading somewhere on this board about there being a requirement that when malls or the like do not allow weapons inside they must provide a location to check the weapons. True? The Nevada Statute for concealed weapons is NRS 202.363 through .369.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html
The instructors at the CCW class I attended in Carson City told us that any property owner or manager has the right to ask you to leave the property for which they are responsible for carrying a firearm. That is not specified in the statute. The same instructors also informed us that Clark County was difficult to get a permit in and that carrying concealed in Clark County was problematic. Lastly, Nevada is an open carry state, except that for open carry, Clark County requires a permit.
I am sorry for your loss. I trust the truth will prevail.
Detonics
07-25-2010, 00:56
The same instructors also informed us that Clark County was difficult to get a permit in and that carrying concealed in Clark County was problematic. Lastly, Nevada is an open carry state, except that for open carry, Clark County requires a permit.
Generally there is no real problem to carrying concealed in Clark County. Commons sense procedures being the key.
For the last 10 or so years, obtaining the permit has been easy -provided your background is clear. In the late '80's and before there were generally only about a thousand permits issued annually and people without demonstrated need or good "contacts" were routinely denied.
As has been noted in a number of posts on this thread there are a number of opinions on this shooting.
But why the difference of opinion? Could it be the Police nationwide have a PR problem?
Could the PR problem have been made by the Police Force itself?
The anti's like to say "Waco- Ruby Ridge" all the time but does it go deeper? Does the individual on a force covering for a bad apple allow it to rot the whole force?
We have a number of threads here about SWAT Teams and no knock entry "mistakes". And for the most part the Police force involved is down right rude to the citizens once the "mistake" is known - if Joe Civilian is still alive that is. Busting in a door of the wrong home or trashing it and then stonewalling about fixing it or cleaning the home up? Shooting dogs and then "Hey man, it's just a dog."
Remember the bridge shooting during Katrina? That was ruled a good shoot also. Evil gang of crazed thugs coming over a bridge assaulting the good guy cops - until the real story came - a bunch of crazed cops having a mad minute lighting up some unarmed civilians - and then getting help from superiors to help cover it up. Or the CA cops using no knock raids to cover their life of crime?
Maybe the divide starts with the Police Force. Maybe the cure starts there.
Not everybody is a perp. Most people in the country obey the law and instructions from the police. But having individuals on the force who treat everybody as a perp only deepens the divide.
Utah Bob
07-25-2010, 06:25
The Army is also slow and reluctant to admit when it makes mistakes. Pat Tillman. trainee deaths, etc.
Organizational culture can be a bad thing sometimes.
One could assume the worst or wait and see.
If mistakes were made, hopefully there will be some accountability.
Some are convinced there's stonewalling and whitewashing under way right now. I'm not convinced. Time will tell.
Utah Bob
07-25-2010, 07:28
Five-0, your response to Pete is an overreaction and unnecessarily rude. You need to be able to understand, if not agree with, different points of view. Like you, I have been a civilian, a QP and a cop. It has allowed me to see things from several angles.
The incidents Pete referenced were black marks on LE in many ways. He is not blasting all law enforcement in general.
We'll see how this case works out. Hopefully the police did the right thing. We don't know yet.
I think Pete makes some good points.
It is my opinion that there is a substantial divide between law enforcement and the general public; furthermore, that divide is increasing. Back some years ago...early 1980's...I obtained a reserve police commission for a few years. As one real law enforcement officer put it, I used to be a wanna-be. So although I cannot say (and do not say) that I was a LEO, I have had the opportunity to observe civilian-LEO interactions at close hand for some years.
One issue is that law enforcement officers and the general population seem to have little chance or inclination to mix. Even when they do mix, there appears to be little common ground for discussion. And, too, in many instances the perspective differs. I do not know why this effect seems to exist, yet it seems to.
Another issue is that LEOs are, after all, a branch of government. Government does not seem to be improving in the eyes of the general public. But law enforcement enforces the rules government creates - rules that are, at least sometimes, unpopular. Furthermore, there are hints that government itself harbors considerable corruption. Although law enforcement officers may have no involvement at all, they cannot escape (IMO) some of the taint. This is, of course, unfair - but that changes nothing.
Governmental policy is a further problem. The civilian community has a set of priorities when it comes to crime. If someone stole a citizen's car, then there is anger, feelings of loss, resentment - and a desire that someone, somewhere, solve the crime and send the perps to prison for eternity. (Yes, I exaggerate - but only a little!) However, policy seems to dictate otherwise. For example, in Texas, theft of a car with a value of less than $20,000 is a misdemeanor. The police officer is the face of government to the civilian who just lost his car. Likewise, the low priority often associated with home burglaries is, IMO, at variance with the preference of a great many citizens. Are there more important crimes? Policy dictates that there are - but the body of the citizenry may not agree.
Stress. Police work may well be a job for an angel - but we have only men and women available. We see that in this thread. The officers made a decision, based on incomplete and ambiguous information. I have no idea whether it was right or wrong, but I do know that the stakes were high and the time short. I doubt that it is possible to reduce the stress of police work - but I believe, too, that the stress will, somehow, be manifested in other behavior.
Finally, the problem may lie in human nature itself. The Stanford Prison Experience speaks to this, and I encourage those not familiar with the study to read the summary HERE (http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm). In essence, the subjects - all ordinary students - displayed sharply different personalities in a matter of days. It is, IMO, worth of reflection in light of the present discussion.
My last post in this thred..maybe this board.
Just in case you disappear, if you have not listed to the audio tapes from Lt Col Grossman on the Bullet Proof Mind or read his books, On Combat or On Killing, you might find them of use. I think that much of the discourse on this thread stem from the level of escalation of the need for force and its effects.
Retailers count on local managers so the whole video issue is ussually a local implementation issue versus policy. And video can hurt or protect a retailer, so there is not strong view within the industry one way or the other. 6 of my patents are in this area, so I have conducted a fair bit of research on the subject. Video cameras dissuade people from stealing, but cost and maintenance and monitoring all become factors. Retailers build in a certain amount of "shrink" and do not have the time or resources to review video to catch and prosecute. So, ATMs and store cameras are often fake or just not recording.
Eventually, some level of truth will come out and I will patiently await.
Utah Bob
07-25-2010, 08:11
Finally, the problem may lie in human nature itself.
Nmap, that is a large part of it. The group Us vs THEM mentality is a very difficult thing to avoid. The Stanford experiment pointed out how large this problem can become and how quickly it manifests itself.
Military v Civilians
Cops v Citizens
Mets v Yankees
etc etc
If more departments adhered closer to Sir Robert Peels principles of policing there would be fewer problems but many administrators and street level cops see them as outdated and that's unfortunate.
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Friday night I was talking on the phone with one of my closest friends. After over 40 years as a police officer in Ohio, he is retiring. This thread brings back something he told me close to 30 years ago. We used to hang out on weekends (both single at the time) He told me I was his window to sanity. He felt too many police only hung out with police and began to get the us verse them mentality and he felt some actually began to forget that most people are decent. He felt the worst thing that could happen to a young police officer was to start hanging out with older cops after hours. For over 40 years he refused to take the sergeants exam. He always said he was a damn good cop and would be a absolutely horrible administrator. What he said made a lot of sense.
In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
~ Bertrand Russell
It's a rash man who reaches a conclusion before he gets to it.
~ Jacob Levin
Just sayin'...
Richard :munchin
DinDinA-2
07-25-2010, 10:36
Excellent quotes, Richard.
Thanks
DJ Urbanovsky
07-25-2010, 10:41
The us vs them mentality exists everywhere - it's not a cop/citizen exclusive thing. Some people hitch their wagon to a particular star, and then it's out the window with all of their objectivity and critical thinking skills. It seems, at least to me, to have become especially prevalent these days.
Just because this guy went to WP and his dad is "somebody" doesn't mean he did what was right, and just because those other guys were cops doesn't mean that they did what was right, either. Good people fall down too. And everybody is capable of irrational behavior. Nobody is immune from "He wouldn't do that." Because you never know.
Let's not forget that eyewitnesses have a natural tendency to miss-remember the events they witnessed, especially if stress was involved. The brain will fill in missing information so that things make sense. Sometimes, the line of questioning can induce witnesses to miss-remember. This works the same with witnesses for both sides.
I'm curious... How did anybody know that he was carrying a concealed weapon? Concealed means concealed.
Leozinho
07-25-2010, 10:59
So where are the videos from inside the store? Not working? Mighty convenient for Costco and the manager.
Seems the manager is the big question mark in this story. The story was he was rowdy inside, throwing stuff around. Anybody witness to the "crazy man inside"?
As you may know, what the tapes from inside the store show will have no relevance on whether the police are found to have acted appropriately. The police will only be judged on the information they had or believed at the time, not what was later determined to be true. They can't be judged with 20/20 vision of hindsight. However, the dispatch log, which paints a picture of an emotionally disturbed person, would be relevant, as the officers would have heard the radio calls prior to the shooting.
(I supposed the Costco employees, if it turns out they lied about Scott's behavior inside the store, may have set themselves up for some civil liability, but that's way outside my lane.)
But there are a few things that trouble me. The store was asked to clear everybody out while the cops are outside. The individual is coming out with the other cutomers, peaceful like it would seem, since nobody was running and screaming, so he is with a group of people and the cops are the ones who start the ruckus.
Three guys screaming instructions in a crowd - seems it might take everybody a few seconds to react. WTF is going on.
Your version of how the incident started is complete conjecture. The fact is you and I don't know what happened there, to include how officers first made contact with Scott and how the encounter escalated from there. You've made a lot out of SWAT cops screaming commands in a previous thread and mentioned it in this one. It is clear you are biased against police. So be it, but try not to let the bias cloud your reasoning and the things you write.
....... You've made a lot out of SWAT cops screaming commands in a previous thread and mentioned it in this one. It is clear you are biased against police. So be it, but try not to let the bias cloud your reasoning and the things you write.
And you could not be more wrong. I am not biased against police.
I am biased against a number of people shouting commands and expecting everybody to 1. Understand what they are all saying and 2. Comply with with what they are all saying - immediately.
Team Sergeant
07-25-2010, 11:52
As you may know, what the tapes from inside the store show will have no relevance on whether the police are found to have acted appropriately. The police will only be judged on the information they had or believed at the time, not what was later determined to be true. They can't be judged with 20/20 vision of hindsight. However, the dispatch log, which paints a picture of an emotionally disturbed person, would be relevant, as the officers would have heard the radio calls prior to the shooting.
(I supposed the Costco employees, if it turns out they lied about Scott's behavior inside the store, may have set themselves up for some civil liability, but that's way outside my lane.)
Your version of how the incident started is complete conjecture. The fact is you and I don't know what happened there, to include how officers first made contact with Scott and how the encounter escalated from there. You've made a lot out of SWAT cops screaming commands in a previous thread and mentioned it in this one. It is clear you are biased against police. So be it, but try not to let the bias cloud your reasoning and the things you write.
And you could not be more wrong. I am not biased against police.
I am biased against a number of people shouting commands and expecting everybody to 1. Understand what they are all saying and 2. Comply with with what they are all saying - immediately.
five-o,
See the posts above, two men disagreeing without being assholes. We already have enough assholes on this board. Argue/disagree nice or take it elsewhere. This is not a request.
Team Sergeant
And you could not be more wrong. I am not biased against police.
I am biased against a number of people shouting commands and expecting everybody to 1. Understand what they are all saying and 2. Comply with with what they are all saying - immediately.
you just described every service person whose serving in OIF/OEF who doesn't have the benefit of a translator in a split second MDMP.
FWIW, from a civilian perspective just as Kaplan mentioned a growing disconnect between the civilian community and the military, IMHO there is also a growing disconnect between civilians and LEO based on lack of community interaction. I don't know if it's demographics etc., but my question for LEO is has the interaction demographic changed? You read about officers in the past knowing, and being known in their patrol areas, is this just rose tinted nostalgia? I ask because IMHO , perhaps because I live in a big city, these days it seems the only community interaction a law abiding citizen has with the LEO is negative, traffic violations etc.
I was able to interact at a shooting class last month, with a bunch of fellow students who are LEO in GA. There were one or two who were bullies on power trips, but the vast majority were nice, regular guys who I enjoyed getting to know immensely, and would fish or have a beer with.
Interestingly enough the most impressive officer was this very quiet local Marshall who was a dead shot. He echoed some of the notions folks here have mentioned. He was actually critical of Col. Grossman, describing him as a guy with the gift of gab, but very little real world experience who is taken as gospel. To him the sheep dog analogy fosters a sense of entitlement and us vs. them which he said was a trap for his profession.
The truth has a way of coming out, and I hope justice is served here.
The Reaper
07-25-2010, 14:31
He was actually critical of Col. Grossman, describing him as a guy with the gift of gab, but very little real world experience who is taken as gospel....
I have been saying that for a while.
Nice guy with a good idea for a short story, not sure it warrants what it has become or that he is fully qualified to present the premise.
TR
Utah Bob
07-25-2010, 15:41
In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
~ Bertrand Russell
It's a rash man who reaches a conclusion before he gets to it.
~ Jacob Levin
Just sayin'...
Richard :munchin
So, jumping to conclusions is not a bonified PT program?:D
Defender968
07-25-2010, 17:49
FWIW, from a civilian perspective just as Kaplan mentioned a growing disconnect between the civilian community and the military, IMHO there is also a growing disconnect between civilians and LEO based on lack of community interaction. I don't know if it's demographics etc., but my question for LEO is has the interaction demographic changed? You read about officers in the past knowing, and being known in their patrol areas, is this just rose tinted nostalgia? I ask because IMHO , perhaps because I live in a big city, these days it seems the only community interaction a law abiding citizen has with the LEO is negative, traffic violations etc.
You are correct, there is a growing disconnect, because most people only interact with LEO's on the worst day of their lives or for a traffic ticket….if at all. The problem is exasperated by the fact that many cops like to hang out with other cops, partially because you’re on the same schedule, and partially because you share the same life in many ways.
In my experience patrolling in a large city, we were in the same area day in and day out, but we had very little contact with the public at large, you spend most of your time dealing with the criminal element, or driving from call for service to call for service, which is where you interact most with members of the public, but often you went to the same houses over and over again... so you really are only interacting with a very small percentage of the public. The city I worked was a larger city in SC, at any given time there were less than 50 cops on the street for a city of over 100K so you really can't get to know the people in you beat, you get to know the problem makers, but by far and large you aren't going to get to know the public. There were probably 25K or more people in my beat...getting to go them all would be impossible.
As for this case....I can only hope that justice and the truth prevail. Prayers out for all involved.
FWIW, from a civilian perspective just as Kaplan mentioned a growing disconnect between the civilian community and the military, IMHO there is also a growing disconnect between civilians and LEO based on lack of community interaction. I don't know if it's demographics etc., but my question for LEO is has the interaction demographic changed? You read about officers in the past knowing, and being known in their patrol areas, is this just rose tinted nostalgia? I ask because IMHO , perhaps because I live in a big city, these days it seems the only community interaction a law abiding citizen has with the LEO is negative, traffic violations etc.
You're describing apples and different apples within apples. There's cops who interact very little with the public based upon thier job scopes. For example, units such as SWAT, EOD, Marine Unit, record keeping, etc.
That's a lot different from the bicycle or foot beat officers who interact with the public on a daliy basis, or the horse officers who patrol Golden Gate Park every day and conducts meets and greets.
The most negative aspect is the traffic unit whose main function is traffic enforcement whose deployed on high speed corriders (19th Ave) where vehicle and pedestrian accidents occur on a daily basis. That's where the average law abiding citizen usually interacts with the police is during an issuance of a traffic citation.
It's going to get worse instead of better since there's a hiring freeze and police respone will get slower due to attrition from retirements.
18C4V -Entire Post
Fair enough, I understand there are different job scopes within LEO, and hiring constraints and resources have departments stretched thin. If interactions between LEO and the community are generally brief and negative, how can this disconnect be avoided?
Very generally speaking if LEO are constantly exposed to the negative aspects of society, dealing with the murders, rapes, theft, or even petty crime and people who constantly lie to them etc., and on the flip side law abiding civilians as Defender968 mentioned generally only interact with LEO on the worst day of their life or when speeding etc, isn't it easy for to us slip into the net result of mutual cynicism?
At the end of the day we are all human. The LEO have constant exposure to the darker elements of human nature, and might resent a lack of appreciation for the risks they take, while the civilians are asking why are LEO hassling me when there are real criminals running around? I am guessing here on what Cops are thinking, but I'm echoing what I hear civilians say.
My point is only this, I got the unexpected opportunity to spend some time interacting with LEO off duty, and left with greater appreciation for the profession and reinforced my belief they are generally the good guys. For their part, a few mentioned it's nice to meet a "normal" responsible civilian. I think there needs to be more of this, maybe LEO interacting with schools so when those kids grow up, perhaps we could avoid instances like that fool from Harvard...
olhamada
07-25-2010, 20:09
I think there needs to be more of this, maybe LEO interacting with schools so when those kids grow up, perhaps we could avoid instances like that fool from Harvard...
When I was in elementary school in the '70s, we used to have "Officer Friendly" come by once a month to talk to our class and interact with the us. Most of us grew up trusting the police and interacting in a very friendly and warm way. Most of the kids I see around today have little respect for the police, and even less trust - it has become more of a fear based relationship.
I know these monthly interactions in elementary school weren't the entire reason for the way we now think of and interact with police (parents have a lot to do with kids' respect for authority), but it sure as hell contributed.
Fair enough, I understand there are different job scopes within LEO, and hiring constraints and resources have departments stretched thin. If interactions between LEO and the community are generally brief and negative, how can this disconnect be avoided? ...
I don't know.
What our command staff is doing is reallocating resouces, meaning shifitng resouces from one station to another. For example, after the numerous assaults on Asians on the 3rd St Corridor in the Bay View and Ingleside, Command staff has reassigned additonal officers to those areas on a 30-60 day loan. So those officers who will be there for a brief time won't have the time to establish rapport with the residents and merchants on the 3rd st corridor or the bayshore corridor in the Inglside district.
Very generally speaking if LEO are constantly exposed to the negative aspects of society, dealing with the murders, rapes, theft, or even petty crime and people who constantly lie to them etc., and on the flip side law abiding civilians as Defender968 mentioned generally only interact with LEO on the worst day of their life or when speeding etc, isn't it easy for to us slip into the net result of mutual cynicism?
Generally speaking, I would say yes.
I think there needs to be more of this, maybe LEO interacting with schools so when those kids grow up, perhaps we could avoid instances like that fool from Harvard...
We do, its just not newsworthy enough for the Chronicle or the Examiner.
ZonieDiver
07-25-2010, 20:29
So, jumping to conclusions is not a bonified PT program?:D
Nor is it, in my very humble estimation, a very SF way to go .
Saturday's shooting was not the first for Mosher, who in April 2006 was one of two officers who shot and killed a suspect in a car.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/Search/Abstracts.aspx?id=194601
I have always thought it was a rare case where a policeman had to use deadly force. In trying to find some support for this, I stumbled across the above link which states that there were 78 incidents where the police used deadly force in Minnesota over a 20 year period. I do not know if this is enough to establish that the use of deadly force is rare. I'm sure there are others on this board with better information. Obviously, Las Vegas is a different animal, but I believe many LEO's retire never having fired their weapon in a hostile setting. It appears Officer Mosher is a statistical anomaly.
Looks like this will not be resolved anytime soon.
LINK to story at Las Vegas Sun (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/27/coroners-inquest-costco-shooting-indefinitely-post/)
Avoid posting any text from the link: Here's Why (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/)
Avoid posting any text from the link: Here's Why (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/)
Steve Gibson sounds like a prick. So citing the source of an article is no longer sufficient?
Steve Gibson sounds like a prick. So citing the source of an article is no longer sufficient?
You, Sir, are an excellent judge of character.
And, apparently, this is creating some potential liability. My understanding, which is probably flawed is:
Provide a link: OK
Paraphrase: OK
Excerpt (brief): maybe OK
Excerpt (long): risky
Whole text: Bad idea
I just wouldn't want anyone to get a nasty surprise.
CoLawman
07-29-2010, 13:25
I have a high degree of confidence the investigation will be conducted without the "us against the world" bias. I believe the officials responsible for the investigation will conduct a comprehensive and thorough examination of all available facts which they can draw conclusions from. The final findings are going to be disputed by those who expect/want a different result.
Utah Bob
07-29-2010, 16:36
Looks like this will not be resolved anytime soon.
LINK to story at Las Vegas Sun (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/27/coroners-inquest-costco-shooting-indefinitely-post/)
Avoid posting any text from the link: Here's Why (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/)
Thanks for the heads up on Gibson.
bubblehead
07-30-2010, 09:53
Looks like this will not be resolved anytime soon.
LINK to story at Las Vegas Sun (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/27/coroners-inquest-costco-shooting-indefinitely-post/)
Avoid posting any text from the link: Here's Why (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/)
Yes, DMCA Takedown Notice.
WholeManin2010
08-16-2010, 11:28
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/15/why-your-friends-might-be-packing/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/15/why-your-friends-might-be-packing/
Interesting article. It seemed to insinuate that in Nevada, you needed a permit for each weapon you may carry. In NC, if you have a CCW, it covers you for each weapon. You only have to demonstrate proficiency with a handgun, not with each one, say a Glock 19, then a Ruger LCP, then some snub nose revolver. Can anyone from Nevada clarify that?
Detonics
08-17-2010, 13:08
Interesting article. It seemed to insinuate that in Nevada, you needed a permit for each weapon you may carry. In NC, if you have a CCW, it covers you for each weapon. You only have to demonstrate proficiency with a handgun, not with each one, say a Glock 19, then a Ruger LCP, then some snub nose revolver. Can anyone from Nevada clarify that?
As of 4 month's ago this was correct: a CCW permittee can qualify with a revolver and thereafter carry ANY revolver (or derringer) - the permit will simply state "Revolvers Authorized"; however, one must continue to qualify with each make/model/caliber of semi auto pistols.
At that time you could have up to a dozen weapons authorized on your ccw. The state maintains a database of authorized weapons on each permit and the LVMPD also has the status of a persons permit i.e. applicant, permit authorized or permit revoked / suspended for applicants or permit holders in Clark County in an antique database they administer.
Detonics
09-09-2010, 11:12
Appears the Coroner's inquest will be televised on the Clark County Government channel on Sept. 22 possibly through the 24th.
You can see the video streamed here: Here (http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/public_communications/p/Pages/videostream.aspx)
BigJimCalhoun
09-24-2010, 20:56
Late Breaking details......
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/coroners-inquest-erik-scott/
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13113874/new-details-surface-in-police-shooting-victim-erik-scotts-past?redirected=true
dr. mabuse
09-24-2010, 21:06
I get "page not found" or "bad request" on those links.
Late Breaking details......
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010...st-erik-scott/
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/131138...edirected=true
No joy on links.
Pat
I'm becoming more convinced that the only way to properly carry a weapon is the school methodology of Poncho Villa, as sung by Merl Haggard, "on the outside of his coat for the whole world to see."
The weapon that was being carried was in it's holster when the first LEO fired. Victim had removed holster from his waistband.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/officer-deadly-shooting-says-man-pointed-gun-didnt/
The Reaper
09-25-2010, 08:12
The weapon that was being carried was in it's holster when the first LEO fired. Victim had removed holster from his waistband.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/officer-deadly-shooting-says-man-pointed-gun-didnt/
How do you drop a holstered gun without touching it?
TR
How do you drop a holstered gun without touching it?
TR
The other half of that question is; Why was the gun, holstered or not, out of his waistband?
It seems like this was a bad situation all around.
Derek
Team Sergeant
09-25-2010, 09:35
All this has taught me that if confronted by the police is to interlock/interlace fingers on top of head, drop to knees, and tell the "officers" to get my gun, cause I ain't going to touch it.
This incident has woke me up to the point if I were in a mall packed with people, armed and some crazed individual started shooting, I may not draw my weapon, but instead just walk out.
You don't shoot people just because they are holding a weapon, period.
It takes "well trained" individual well over a second and a half to bring a holstered a weapon to bear, acquire a target, and fire. This is from a open carry holster, speed holster if you like. (A CCW holster, depending on the type could take extra seconds.)
It takes most others three tenths of a second to "react" to anyones "action".
My point is, if I (or most anyone else) had a gun "drawn" on you, giving you commands, there isn't an individual in the world that could unholster, bring a weapon to bear and shoot me before I sent him to his maker.
You do the math.
"He was going for his gun", is pure hollywood.
Seems to me this was a very, very bad shoot.
Edit to add: I don't blame the officers, I blame their training. This is the same "well trained" police department that, just four years ago fired over 600 rounds, at one guy, and not achieve the desired effect, not until a former army veteran ended the five hour gunfight. Their training officers need to be re-evaluated.
Team Sergeant
May 12, 2006
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
Sniper tells of fatal shots
After 15 minutes, jury rules police shooting in standoff justified
By FRANCIS McCABE
Charles Collingwood nestled the butt of his .308-caliber Accuracy International sniper rifle against his shoulder and peered through the scope.
He had a "crystal clear" view of unit 265 of the Woodridge Villas apartment complex, from which Christopher Scott Hawkins had engaged police in a standoff for nearly five hours on Feb. 9.
Advertisement
Collingwood, a 13-year Metropolitan Police Department veteran, lay on the roof of a house on Arthur Avenue, more than 100 yards from Hawkins' apartment in the complex near Eastern and Owens avenues.
After 10 canisters of tear gas were lobbed into his apartment, Hawkins fired a flurry of shots from a .40-caliber Glock semiautomatic handgun. One round buzzed over Collingwood's head.
"I needed to stop the threat," Collingwood told jurors Thursday during the Clark County coroner's inquest into the fatal shooting of Hawkins by police.
The SWAT sniper said he adjusted his scope, put the cross hairs on the bridge of Hawkins' nose and squeezed the trigger.
All told, 44 law enforcement officers fired their guns that day. Hawkins used more than 50 rounds of ammunition. Police countered with more than 600 rounds.
No one knows for sure who fired the fatal bullet, said Sgt. Russell Shoemaker, who investigated the case.
After the jury found the actions of police justified, officer Robert Schmidt, who was the first officer to arrive in response to the marijuana complaint, was asked whether he was happy.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/May-12-Fri-2006/news/7365518.html
So cop shoots dog that jumps at his dog - and it's a good shoot.
So dog bites citizen and citizen threatens to shoot dog and he's made out to be a nut case.
What sane person would shoot a dog just because it bit you?
All this has taught me that if confronted by the police is to interlock/interlace fingers on top of head, drop to knees, and tell the "officers" to get my gun, cause I ain't going to touch it.
This incident has woke me up to the point if I were in a mall packed with people, armed and some crazed individual started shooting, I may not draw my weapon, but instead just walk out.
You don't shoot people just because they are holding a weapon, period.
It takes "well trained" individual well over a second and a half to bring a holstered a weapon to bear, acquire a target, and fire. This is from a open carry holster, speed holster if you like. (A CCW holster, depending on the type could take extra seconds.)
It takes most others three tenths of a second to "react" to anyones "action".
My point is, if I (or most anyone else) had a gun "drawn" on you, giving you commands, there isn't an individual in the world that could unholster, bring a weapon to bear and shoot me before I sent him to his maker.
You do the math.
"He was going for his gun", is pure hollywood.
Seems to me this was a very, very bad shoot.
Edit to add: I don't blame the officers, I blame their training. This is the same "well trained" police department that, just four years ago fired over 600 rounds, at one guy, and not achieve the desired effect, not until a former army veteran ended the five hour gunfight. Their training officers need to be re-evaluated.
Team Sergeant
May 12, 2006
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
Sniper tells of fatal shots
After 15 minutes, jury rules police shooting in standoff justified
By FRANCIS McCABE
Charles Collingwood nestled the butt of his .308-caliber Accuracy International sniper rifle against his shoulder and peered through the scope.
He had a "crystal clear" view of unit 265 of the Woodridge Villas apartment complex, from which Christopher Scott Hawkins had engaged police in a standoff for nearly five hours on Feb. 9.
Advertisement
Collingwood, a 13-year Metropolitan Police Department veteran, lay on the roof of a house on Arthur Avenue, more than 100 yards from Hawkins' apartment in the complex near Eastern and Owens avenues.
After 10 canisters of tear gas were lobbed into his apartment, Hawkins fired a flurry of shots from a .40-caliber Glock semiautomatic handgun. One round buzzed over Collingwood's head.
"I needed to stop the threat," Collingwood told jurors Thursday during the Clark County coroner's inquest into the fatal shooting of Hawkins by police.
The SWAT sniper said he adjusted his scope, put the cross hairs on the bridge of Hawkins' nose and squeezed the trigger.
All told, 44 law enforcement officers fired their guns that day. Hawkins used more than 50 rounds of ammunition. Police countered with more than 600 rounds.
No one knows for sure who fired the fatal bullet, said Sgt. Russell Shoemaker, who investigated the case.
After the jury found the actions of police justified, officer Robert Schmidt, who was the first officer to arrive in response to the marijuana complaint, was asked whether he was happy.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/May-12-Fri-2006/news/7365518.html
NO video cameras working, OR not the right angle of video cameras working....smells like rotten vegetables to me...
At least there is the 911 tape....but still, am confused!!! :rolleyes:
Am going to call a spade a spade here, and just say that after reading all of the testimony, the cops were high on adreniline, got pumped up to get a potential "bad guy," and shot!! :mad:
Not saying that is what happened in this case, but....Not ALL Cops are created equal.....'cause I luv Police Officers in general!!!:(
Again, JMHO.
Holly
The Reaper
09-25-2010, 14:50
The other half of that question is; Why was the gun, holstered or not, out of his waistband?
It seems like this was a bad situation all around.
Derek
Derek, are you confused about what was said?
You have a weapon on your belt, holstered.
Three cops have the drop on you and are yelling commands.
One of them tells you to "drop the gun".
You have to touch it to do so, but you remove it holstered to prevent any lethal misunderstanding.
The cops light you up anyway for having a gun in your hand.
That seems to me, based on the reports, to be what actually happened. The manager's story about what happened inside the store seems a bit strange to me.
I am with the TS on this one. If a cop wants me to remove my weapon, he can do that for me while I am on my face with hands outstretched or on my head. I am not touching the weapon. I will comply with all other instructions.
TR
6.8SPC_DUMP
09-25-2010, 15:35
This article gives one angle on the reaction of Erik Scott's girlfriend and she witnessed the shooting first hand. Link (http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/25147412/detail.html)
In general it makes sense that an insolvent city would have motivation to limit wrongful death lawsuits.
For those that carry be careful and do what you're told. I can tell countless stories of off duty cops who were proned out on the pavement by cops from other agencies.
Cops are trained to yell out what they see for future witness statements. So if one of the cop is yelling drop the gun, or knife, or whatever.
Our academy does not teach our officers to verbally order the suspect to touch his gun and then yell "drop the gun" or to surrender his gun just for the libabily reason. If there's an agency out there that teaches that, then they deserve to be sued.
Edit to add: I don't blame the officers, I blame their training. This is the same "well trained" police department that, just four years ago fired over 600 rounds, at one guy, and not achieve the desired effect, not until a former army veteran ended the five hour gunfight. Their training officers need to be re-evaluated.
Team Sergeant
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/May-12-Fri-2006/news/7365518.html
Alternate viewpoint. Mosher is a lying piece of crap who can't keep his lies straight. I'm looking at the two contradictory statements below that he made on the stand.
The officers were waiting for their sergeant and more officers to arrive before coming up with a plan to enter the store and make contact with Scott, possibly with a shield and some less-lethal weapons, Mosher said.
When questioned about why he didn't use a nonlethal method to resolve the situation with Scott, Mosher said, "We're not trained to subdue people with a firearm with nonlethal means."
uboat509
09-25-2010, 19:56
This was the thing that jumped out at me from the dispatch log,
D: 2V16, if you'll also be en route on the 413 at Costco, 801 S. Pavillion Center. The male inside the business is acting erratic, throwing merchandise around, possibly high on unknown type of 446. (8:03) emphasis mine.
It appears that the police arrived on scene expecting an agitated armed man who was possibly high on something. I would imagine that that information would color their perceptions of the victim's actions. I am not a LEO but I have worked in a number of EDs as part of my medic training and have encountered people that were high on various substances. They can be erratic and unpredictable. That had to be going through the LEO's minds when they arrived on the scene.
What I would like to know is A) is there a drug problem in that area such that these LEO's might have had to deal with people who were agitated, erratic and dangerous because of a drug and B) where did the statement about him being possibly high come from? Did the Costco employees say that or did someone at the dispatch assume that based on what the Costco employees reported?
uboat509
09-25-2010, 20:16
Alternate viewpoint. Mosher is a lying piece of crap who can't keep his lies straight. I'm looking at the two contradictory statements below that he made on the stand.
The officers were waiting for their sergeant and more officers to arrive before coming up with a plan to enter the store and make contact with Scott, possibly with a shield and some less-lethal weapons, Mosher said.
When questioned about why he didn't use a nonlethal method to resolve the situation with Scott, Mosher said, "We're not trained to subdue people with a firearm with nonlethal means."
I don't think that these are contradictory statements at all. I took it to mean that they are not trained to use less than lethal means in unplanned encounters. He stated that they were waiting for more officers with less than lethal weapons to arrive at which point they would plan how they would take him down with less than lethal force.
Detonics
09-25-2010, 23:02
Alternate viewpoint. Mosher is a lying piece of crap who can't keep his lies straight..
That's pretty strong don't you think? How well do you know the officer in order to make such a statement? Have you ever been in a law enforcement shooting situation with other officers and civilians mixed in? Were you present during this incident?
I've watched the inquest fairly steadily. The fact that Erik was demonstrably stoned to the gills leaves much room for the possibility that he acted contrary to the commands the officers were giving or differently than he or any normal person would if he wasn't under the influence. I don't know what the exact circumstances were as I wasn't there. What's been established so far, is that there was the possibility or even likelihood of less than compliant behavior and that the decedent had two firearms. To get more than that we'll have to see the rest of the testimony.
It's not at all unusual to have many wildly differing statements from witnesses and it appears the person with the closest viewpoint has decided to absent herself from providing testimony in the proceedings defined by the County Government for fact finding in such incidents. Also, the family attorney supposedly has 20+ witnesses to the incident. If he were interested in having the Inquest determine the facts, would he not have identified those witnesses to the Coroner? Or might he and the family have some motive for not having the folks testify.
I can tell you that if the District Attorney there believed this was an unjustified/bad faith shooting there'd be no hesitation in proceeding criminally.
I heartily agree with everyone who's mentioned that in no case should a person in these circumstances ever place their hand anywhere near their weapon.
6.8SPC_DUMP
09-26-2010, 01:21
I can tell you that if the District Attorney there believed this was an unjustified/bad faith shooting there'd be no hesitation in proceeding criminally.
How would you know about that? God bless the American treasure that is beautiful CO - and the nice people that live there - and you who knows other cities DA motives?
The officer kept telling Scott, “Don’t move, don’t move,” she said.
Sterner said Scott reached for his weapon slowly to show the officer he was disarming, insisting that by no means was he making a “fast movement.”
“Next thing I know, he is shot..."
IMHO, a good example of what TS and TR said about not taking out a gun when you have a LEO pointing a gun at you, perticularly after telling you not to move when being called because you refused to leave private property with your gun. It doesn't seem like the LEO's would have been shot at by Mr. Scott though.
During proceedings Thursday, two recordings of 911 calls were played for the jury. One of those calls was made by Lierley, a Costco loss prevention supervisor.
Lierley was on the witness stand while the call was played and explained to the jury what had led him to call police.
He said Scott was acting “erratically” in an aisle, pacing back and forth, mumbling to himself.
Lierley said he began watching Scott for a few minutes as he was putting steel bottles into a neoprene bag, tearing them from their cardboard containers.
He said he eventually noticed Scott had a firearm in his waistband, so he and another employee approached Scott and told him Costco had a policy against firearms in the store and he would have to take the gun outside.
Why would an unarmed loss prevention officer approach an armed man who was putting merchandise in his bag and acting erratically? I think Mr. Lierley is either exaggerating about what occurred inside the store or is incredibly stupid. His story just doesn't seem right to me.
I would have just called 911, maintained video surveillance and provided the dispatcher with real time intel until LE got there.
What I would like to know is A) is there a drug problem in that area such that these LEO's might have had to deal with people who were agitated, erratic and dangerous because of a drug and B) where did the statement about him being possibly high come from? Did the Costco employees say that or did someone at the dispatch assume that based on what the Costco employees reported?
Answering b would be tough, based upon policy and procedures of that dispatch dept. A better poll of answers to that scenerio could be found in one of the PD/Dispatcher forums of which we don't have.
I can understand a though. I can't gell you how many times, I've responded to PCP calls in a district where PCP is common. I've personally seen a guy on PCP my size bust out of hand cuffs like the Incredible Hulk.
Derek, are you confused about what was said?
TR
No Sir. What I'm saying is that another witness said he seemed to be in a daze and refused to comply with commands at least five times. My thoughts are that he could have pulled out the weapon when he was being told to get on the ground prior to being told to drop it.
It's my experience that most often in a situation, even as basic as a car accident, that most times 5 witnesses will have 5 different stories... why? because they aren't trained to look for things. After the fact they start piecing things together and give a statement of what they think happened, unfortunately it's not always right. These witnesses have had a lot of time to read the stories in the paper and watch the news and have been able to "remember" what they saw before testifying.
Don't get me wrong this is a sad story and I'm sure, as people who know him here have said, that Mr. Scott was a good guy. I'm not saying that it was wrong for him to be on painkillers if he was using them for pain. I am saying that for whatever reason he didn't seem to be acting rational this day.
Let me ask this question to everyone and know that I mean no disrespect. If any you were on what has been described ( by medical experts ) to be a near lethal amount of painkillers would you still carry CCW?
Derek
I don't think that these are contradictory statements at all. I took it to mean that they are not trained to use less than lethal means in unplanned encounters. He stated that they were waiting for more officers with less than lethal weapons to arrive at which point they would plan how they would take him down with less than lethal force.
Quite the opposite. Unplanned encounters are a primary reason for tazers, nightsticks, pepper spray, etc. A traffic stop is a "planned encounter" by an individual officer. And you don't "taze" somebody for running a stop sign.
You use it when the situation suddenly goes to hell and becomes a "tazer situation", something you weren't planning on doing when you asked for license, registration, and proof of insurance.
And, he wasn't waiting for more officers. He was waiting for someone who outranked him, so that they would be the pinata hanging in front of the chief if things went south. ;) That's conjecture, but conjecture with real life experience behind it.
B) where did the statement about him being possibly high come from? Did the Costco employees say that or did someone at the dispatch assume that based on what the Costco employees reported?
Both sides of the 911 call are now posted at
http://www.lvrj.com/multimedia/Costco-shooting-911-calls-played-at-Erik-Scott-coroners-inquest-103659964.html
Detonics
09-26-2010, 17:32
How would you know about that?
Newly retired from that office. I've worked on prior inquests and know how the incidents are evaluated. A bad faith shooting would, without doubt be prosecuted.
That's pretty strong don't you think? How well do you know the officer in order to make such a statement? Have you ever been in a law enforcement shooting situation with other officers and civilians mixed in? Were you present during this incident?
Sure it's strong.
Per Mosher, LVPD doesn't subdue people with guns using less than lethal means.
He was standing at the door waiting to possibly possibly use less than lethal means.
LV PO-43-04 directs that " The TASER® may be used when a subject is displaying active, aggressive or aggravated aggressive resistance to an officer
attempting to conduct legal law enforcement activities (see 6/002.00, Use of Force, for definitions).
I see "we don't do that", and "I was preparing to do that" as contradictory, and therefore one of them false. "We don't do that" and written Dept policy that Las Vegas PD *does* do that, is also a direct contradiction. Therefore, he's a liar IMNSHO YMMV.
He also denied that he had given any commands.
When told that he was on tape he *remembered* "show me your hands" and "get down on the ground". (I suspect he *remembered* after hearing the tape of the 911 call.
He remembers that Erik initially followed commands.
His answer, less than 2 minutes later was that that Erik did *not* follow commands.
Yes, he's a liar.
I don't know him, don't need to in order to spot his changing account of events.
I've never shot anyone as a LEO, but I've been in situations where shooting was well within dept. policy and state law, with trigger "halfway down", but didn't fire.
Nope, I wasn't there.
Yep, he's a sack of shit :(
I know that eye witnesses, especially in a crisis situation are the *worst* sort of evidence, so I rely a lot on what I can personally "discern"at leisure.
I'm wondering if there's anyone as disconcerted as I am at the following sequence of "commands", especially LEOs and former LEOs.
Show me your hands.
Show me your hands.
Put the gun down.
Get down on the ground.
Get down on the ground.
Followed by gunshots.
If Erik *hadn't* dropped his weapon after command #3, would anyone here have switched to "Get down on the ground" (with the gun still in his hands and *aimed* at you)?
I've never shot anyone as a LEO, but I've been in situations where shooting was well within dept. policy and state law, with trigger "halfway down", but didn't fire.
Nope, I wasn't there.
Yep, he's a sack of shit :(
I have, and I can tell you that I never heard a shotgun blast less than three feet away from me and I can also say that the three officers involved all saw things differently and none of us were liars.
uboat509
09-26-2010, 23:41
Quite the opposite. Unplanned encounters are a primary reason for tazers, nightsticks, pepper spray, etc. A traffic stop is a "planned encounter" by an individual officer. And you don't "taze" somebody for running a stop sign.
You use it when the situation suddenly goes to hell and becomes a "tazer situation", something you weren't planning on doing when you asked for license, registration, and proof of insurance.
Are you saying that the first option an officer should use when confronted with what he believes is deadly force is less than lethal techniques? My understanding was that less than lethal options were designed to subdue individuals who were not a direct and immediate threat to the life of the officer or other person in other words where use of deadly force was not justified. Perhaps I was misinformed.
Perhaps my terminology is off. What I meant by unplanned encounter in this case is that the officers met the victim at a time and place not of their choosing and without the equipment that they stated that they were waiting on and without a plan in place as to how they were going to proceed with subduing someone that apparently as far as they knew was possibly high on something, agitated and armed.
And, he wasn't waiting for more officers. He was waiting for someone who outranked him, so that they would be the pinata hanging in front of the chief if things went south. ;) That's conjecture, but conjecture with real life experience behind it.
That is what he stated and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will take it at face value.
spherojon
09-27-2010, 15:46
I’m sure Erik Scott was a nice guy and a good friend, and I am sorry for you loss. What struck me as odd was the toxicity report showing lethal amounts of morphine, Xanax, and a combination of other controlled substances.
The police in this situation are arriving on scene expecting a man high on a controlled substance with a firearm. For all the officers know the controlled substance would be PCP, characterized by staggering, unsteady gait, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, slow reaction time, easily confused, and loss of balance.
LV PO-43-04 directs that " The TASER® may be used when a subject is displaying active, aggressive or aggravated aggressive resistance to an officer attempting to conduct legal law enforcement activities (see 6/002.00, Use of Force, for definitions).
In your defense, a Taser is effective on a subject high on PCP. But, my question goes out to LEO’s; would you pull a Taser out on a subject suspected to be on PCP with a firearm?
Bad Tolz
09-27-2010, 17:29
"Nope, I wasn't there.
Yep, he's a sack of shit " Plato
Just curious Plato, are you or have you ever been a LEO in a deadly force situation? If so, are you familiar with Dr. Bill Lewinski (Force Science), who has probably researched and documented more LEO violent encounters than anyone else?
The "sack of shit" comment is not worthy, considering you are armchairing this incident, partner.
Bad Tolz
AngelsSix
09-27-2010, 17:31
I’m sure Erik Scott was a nice guy and a good friend, and I am sorry for you loss. What struck me as odd was the toxicity report showing lethal amounts of morphine, Xanax, and a combination of other controlled substances.
The police in this situation are arriving on scene expecting a man high on a controlled substance with a firearm. For all the officers know the controlled substance would be PCP, characterized by staggering, unsteady gait, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, slow reaction time, easily confused, and loss of balance.
In your defense, a Taser is effective on a subject high on PCP. But, my question goes out to LEO’s; would you pull a Taser out on a subject suspected to be on PCP with a firearm?
Read the dozens of stories of officers that have shot PCP users multiple times and they have kept on coming to understand the answer to your question. The difference is involuntary vs. voluntary.
But, my question goes out to LEO’s; would you pull a Taser out on a subject suspected to be on PCP with a firearm?
No.
I have, and I can tell you that I never heard a shotgun blast less than three feet away from me and I can also say that the three officers involved all saw things differently and none of us were liars.
I understand the confusion when rounds are flying, and time becomes either terrifyingly fast or amazingly slow. I wasn't really addressing that portion of "the case".
I was simply comparing his comments concerning "man with a gun" and non-lethal force.
1. We don't do that.
2. We were preparing to do that.
One of those two is a lie.
Are you saying that the first option an officer should use when confronted with what he believes is deadly force is less than lethal techniques?
Perhaps my terminology is off. What I meant by unplanned encounter in this case is that the officers met the victim at a time and place not of their choosing and without the equipment that they stated that they were waiting on and without a plan in place as to how they were going to proceed with subduing someone that apparently as far as they knew was possibly high on something, agitated and armed.
That is what he stated and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will take it at face value.
Re: first option.....It would be my first choice. A shot to other than the head will possibly to incapacitate a person sooner or later. I imagine many here with a purple heart can attest to that. A taser incapacitates faster.
Re: Planned encounter: I can't think of what the other equipment might be, but then on "my force", of the early 80' we had fewer options. Beanbags and rubber bullets come to mind and both of those are slower
Re: Absence of evidence.... That was was my attempt at LEO/FOG humor. Didn't work .
"Nope, I wasn't there.
Yep, he's a sack of shit " Plato
Just curious Plato, are you or have you ever been a LEO in a deadly force situation? If so, are you familiar with Dr. Bill Lewinski (Force Science), who has probably researched and documented more LEO violent encounters than anyone else?
The "sack of shit" comment is not worthy, considering you are armchairing this incident, partner.
Bad Tolz
"deadly force siituation" I hate that term. :confused:
I'll let you apply it according to your definition. Seems there are several.
I have been a LEO. I have never "applied" deadly force as a LEO.
As a LEO, I have chased, chanced upon, and intentionally encountered people with handguns, knives and shotguns who had hands on and were prepared to use them only in self-defense, to settle a matter with someone, who had a history that included felonies, and who were trying to exit the scene from a felony.
I have been present as a LEO when shots were fired, but as part of an outer perimeter/ to keep the civilians away.
Depending on the individual, all, or one of those situations above could be what they call "deadly force situation".
OK, consider the "sack of shit" withdrawn.
I'll go with "not entirely truthful". :o
Combat Diver
09-28-2010, 00:10
With multiple officers at the enterance waiting for Scott to come out, one should have had a taser out, as it seems they all had their pistols out. I could understand Scott being shot when he made movement to surrender his pistol. What I can not stand for is the additional 3 rds to the back when he was down and lack of first aid.
CD
The full inquest session was broadcast live yesterday. Apparently, it will be broadcast live again today.
Site is http://www.8newsnow.com/category/187236/8-news-now-live-video
Most of the witnesses don't know the difference between a pistol and a cantaloupe, but there's always a chance.
Re: first option.....It would be my first choice. A shot to other than the head will possibly to incapacitate a person sooner or later. I imagine many here with a purple heart can attest to that. A taser incapacitates faster.
Are you shitting me???
Sacamuelas
09-29-2010, 10:10
What struck me as odd was the toxicity report showing lethal amounts of morphine, Xanax, and a combination of other controlled substances.
See my earlier comment... I am, unfortunately, not surprised. The total circumstances are overwhelming in favor of a tragic but reasonable ending. I find sympathy for those that knew this man and that now suffer due to his choices. However, I find it incredibly short sighted to nit pick testimony of ALL involved as if there is/was some conspiracy to target this man.
This guy was not the guy that his former friends knew anymore.... at LEAST not on that day. Bad choices/drug addiction/under the influence/ very erratic and aggressive behavior all while armed with a pistol or two.... yep. He ended up getting the most likely end result from such activity. At least he didn't drive off and KILL a family of innocents while hammered on narcotics and extremely irritated.
AngelsSix
09-29-2010, 17:48
See my earlier comment... I am, unfortunately, not surprised. The total circumstances are overwhelming in favor of a tragic but reasonable ending. I find sympathy for those that knew this man and that now suffer due to his choices. However, I find it incredibly short sighted to nit pick testimony of ALL involved as if there is/was some conspiracy to target this man.
This guy was not the guy that his former friends knew anymore.... at LEAST not on that day. Bad choices/drug addiction/under the influence/ very erratic and aggressive behavior all while armed with a pistol or two.... yep. He ended up getting the most likely end result from such activity. At least he didn't drive off and KILL a family of innocents while hammered on narcotics and extremely irritated.
He sure as hell didn't walk. He wasn't sober when he left his residence. Unless his girlfriend was driving, he had already put people at risk. The mere fact that he knowingly violated numerous laws by arming himself while medicated/intoxicated made him subject to the actions of the officers.
I am not trying to judge, apparently there was a lot going on in this man's life leading up to this. According to the inquest, he had been having issues long before this.
Are you shitting me???
Not at all. A number of PD's find the taser the preferred "weapon" in potential lethal force situations, as does the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Chief Dan Linza would have made sure that I reached an internal temp of about 200 degrees before pulling my shield if I opened fire in a crowded area, or even "stayed in sight" possibly prompting an armed person to "pull".
And on the most personal basis, I often wear a nylon hand/wrist brace about 8 inches long, and there are apparently people in Las Vegas who can't tell the difference between nylon and blued steel in split second decisions.
spherojon
09-30-2010, 17:17
See my earlier comment... I am, unfortunately, not surprised. The total circumstances are overwhelming in favor of a tragic but reasonable ending. I find sympathy for those that knew this man and that now suffer due to his choices. However, I find it incredibly short sighted to nit pick testimony of ALL involved as if there is/was some conspiracy to target this man.
This guy was not the guy that his former friends knew anymore.... at LEAST not on that day. Bad choices/drug addiction/under the influence/ very erratic and aggressive behavior all while armed with a pistol or two.... yep. He ended up getting the most likely end result from such activity. At least he didn't drive off and KILL a family of innocents while hammered on narcotics and extremely irritated.
I pretty much agree with you on this one.
LAS VEGAS -- A coroner's jury ruled that three Las Vegas police officers were justified in the shooting death of Erik Scott at a Summerlin Costco.
The three officers involved will now go before Metro's Use of Force Board before they are re-instated. They have been on paid administrative leave since the incident.
Full Story:
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13238292/sheriff-backs-officers-in-las-vegas-costco-slaying
Follow up stories on one of the police officers involved in this Las Vegas Costco shooting.
FOX5 News Las Vegas
May 13, 2011
"LAS VEGAS -- One of the three Las Vegas Metro police officers who shot and killed an armed man outside of a Summerlin Costco has been indicted by a grand jury for giving a firearm to a convicted felon.
Thomas Mendiola, 23, was relieved from duty without pay earlier this year.
Authorities said he gave a Sturm Ruger handgun to Robert Justice as a gift between July 10 and August 19 of last year. The grand jury indictment stated that Mendiola knew of Justice’s criminal past and conviction for theft.
Mendiola, along with Officers Josh Stark and William Mosher, fired a total of seven bullets into 38-year-old Erik Scott on July 10 outside the Costco entrance, near Charleston Boulevard and the 215 Beltway."
http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/27890291/detail.html
http://www.lvrj.com/news/officer-with-ties-to-costco-shooting-faces-felony-gun-charge-114978534.html
Follow up stories on one of the police officers involved in this Las Vegas Costco shooting.
FOX5 News Las Vegas
May 13, 2011
"LAS VEGAS -- One of the three Las Vegas Metro police officers who shot and killed an armed man outside of a Summerlin Costco has been indicted by a grand jury for giving a firearm to a convicted felon.
Thomas Mendiola, 23, was relieved from duty without pay earlier this year.
Authorities said he gave a Sturm Ruger handgun to Robert Justice as a gift between July 10 and August 19 of last year. The grand jury indictment stated that Mendiola knew of Justice’s criminal past and conviction for theft.
Mendiola, along with Officers Josh Stark and William Mosher, fired a total of seven bullets into 38-year-old Erik Scott on July 10 outside the Costco entrance, near Charleston Boulevard and the 215 Beltway."
http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/27890291/detail.html
http://www.lvrj.com/news/officer-with-ties-to-costco-shooting-faces-felony-gun-charge-114978534.html
In the eyes of a jury, a case can be easily made against the officer that shows he has little concern for policy or effective judgement, and a line can be drawn to show he has little respect for law.
Would not surprise me to see a civil case be brought against the officer in a wrongful death of Erik Scott.
If these allegations prove to be true - the credibility of this officer is certianly at issue.
IMO, that goes to each and every case/incident that this particular officer was involved in. Reportedly, he's only 23.
Avoiding the mere appearance of impropriety is paramount for any officer and karma can be a bitch.
We'll see what transpires next - the word of a convicted felony is also suspect.