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.

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."

This was the thing that jumped out at me from the dispatch log,

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

.



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.

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.

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

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.

Both sides of the 911 call are now posted at

http://www.lvrj.com/multimedia/Costc...103659964.html

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.

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 :(

Maybe it's just me.
 

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 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.

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.

That is what he stated and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will take it at face value.

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?

"Sack of Shit?"
 

"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

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.

No.

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.

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 .

"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

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

live Las Vegas inquest broadcast
 

The full inquest session was broadcast live yesterday. Apparently, it will be broadcast live again today.

Site is http://www.8newsnow.com/category/187...now-live-video

Most of the witnesses don't know the difference between a pistol and a cantaloupe, but there's always a chance.

Are you shitting me???

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.

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.

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/132382...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-wit...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.