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.

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.

security cameras
 

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

That is working under the assumption that the equipment was intended to be fully functional in the first place.

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

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.

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

WP grad killed at Costco in NV because he was carrying CCW
 

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.

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.

Interceder offers real time news feeds to keep you updated: Link

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.

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-...-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.

Billboards Feature Man Killed by Las Vegas Police
 

Ongoing development, FYI.

LINK

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.

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...)

It depends...
 

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.

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.

Five-O
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nationwide the Police have a PR problem
 

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.

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.

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. 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.

Stepping back...
 

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.

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.