TexasCHLforum.com

A lot of people also forget that the coroner testified he had an extremely high level of pain killers in his system, so who knows how he was responding to commands or what his reaction time was.

philip964 wrote:Yeah but did you know her name was Scott.

Uh, yeah, it's in the orginal article. I will bet there are 1000's of people named Scott that go to Costco every week. Just one of those strange coincidneces.

philip964 wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Another person named Scott has been shot and killed by police at another Costco.

Yep. Been running here since last week viewtopic.php?f=83&t=66598" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bullwhip wrote:

Keith B wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

philip964 wrote:
I thought we could not link to lvrj, or did they loose that one in the courts pretty bad?
.

Don't know anything about that...should I remove it?

Yes, no links to Las Vegas papers or stations. I chganged it to another source.

Look again, that was settled a long time ago. Right haven lost big time, din't even have any permission to claim copyright.

We still don't want them on the forum.

wgoforth wrote:

philip964 wrote:
I thought we could not link to lvrj, or did they loose that one in the courts pretty bad?
.

Don't know anything about that...should I remove it?

Yes, no links to Las Vegas papers or stations. I chganged it to another source.

wgoforth wrote:

puma guy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:He was banned for four reasons; 1) violation of the rule against general "COP-bashing;" 2) making a personal attack against a fellow Member; 3) responding equally inappropriately to a warning PM sent by a Moderator; and 4) then changing his email address to a bogus one with a fictitious profane domain name. Obviously, he didn't want to remain a Member.

I too am sorry about his personal attack gigag04.

Chas.

Thank You, Mr. Cotton and good riddence. This is why TexasCHLForum is THE best in the land!

I agree.... but I still enjoy telling a good cop joke once in a while
But I enjoy preach jokes too....

Donut jokes are one thing; personal attacks are another. My apologies too gigag04. I got to this as quickly as possible, but sometimes folks are just faster than us Mods in reading.

Depending on the quality of the system and the software, there is a real good possibility that there is no video. I have video security system at work and at home. it is not uncommon for a system to look like it is functioning when it really isn't recording, or one channel on the multiplexer is hosed up.

Does it look like a possible cover-up? Yeah, but we probably will never know. They could telling the truth on the video. However, the slogan 'What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas' is really seems to fit this one.

Do not post links from Las Vegas papers or copied stories from them due to alleged copyright infringement claims by them against various websites and forums.

The other thread will be removed due to not allowing links to the newspaper refered to, so let's keep it in here.

baldeagle wrote:Maybe there is a good reason the Scott family is being coy. According to a commenter in this Confederate Yankee post, Erik's gun was removed from his waistband by paramedics while they were treating him. This would mean that Scott never even withdrew his holster, unless someone put it back in his waistband after he was down.

Any witness who states they saw a gun in Scott's hands are somewhat less than reliable, and their accounts should be thoroughly discounted in your analyses.

In the ambulance driver's report of the incident, written while they were driving back - and this report may not yet be generally available - the paramedics write that THEY REMOVED SCOTT'S GUN FROM HIS WAISTBAND HOLSTER and placed it on the ground.

This little FACT is somewhat at variance with a whole lot of what was said, and what some of the less acute observers who are saying they saw a gun in Scott's hands.

Also: Scott and Sam' walked by officers who were AT THE ENTRANCE when they were walking out, and THOSE police didn't see anything unusual (i.e., threatening) in Scott's attitude. It was ONLY after they'd passed by THOSE officers that the Costco part-time employee pointed out Scott and Sam' to the three officers (she was standing beside) who were involved in the shoot.

There was mention of him carrying two pistols early on. What happened to that slant?

He posted theorists, not terrorists.

And, keep this civil without in-fighting or the thread will be locked. Discussion is fine, but everyone needs to keep open minded on all sides of this. None of us were there, and as much as it stinks, theories are just that until the evidence is put in front of everyone. Until that time, opinions are just that.

As I believe I posted in one of these 30-some-odd pages, it was basically an 'error chain' that was built. In other words, there were multiple issues or 'errors' that were made to forge the chain that eventually cost Erik his life. From what I can see, those events you listed above are the ones that were the links: the drugs and potentially agitated (maybe enhanced by the drugs), a scared security guard who embellished his call to 911, cops responding to a call of a man with a gun (not a CHL holder who is agitated at the store employees) and then Erik's failure to follow or react promptly to the rapid commands the responding LEO's issued. Had any one of the items not been there, then the chain would have been broken and he probably would still be here with us today.

I am sure this will be an incriminating factor into the shooting. Even if he was habituated to the narcotics he had been prescribed, even with my small level of knowledge on toxicology, the levels they were describing that were in his system were very high and the mixture would have affected him greatly. Not saying this is the case with Mr. Scott, but anyone I have ever dealt that was an habitual user of narcotics or alcohol at high levels that could still function, still did not have their full faculties about them.

One example is the guy I arrested for DWI, and when we got him to the station he blew a .42!! I thought it was bogus, so had another officer administer the test and same results. Sargent came in about that time and said 'Oh, you caught old Jack.' He then explained that Jack was constantly drunk and that he had learned to function even with extremely high levels of alcohol. He had adapted so well that if he was only in the .2X range he drove well enough to not be weaving and causing any issues (not that they would let him go if seen, he just didn't attract attention to himself cause he was driving OK.)

Bottom line, these items in Mr. Scott's system could have played a VERY important role in his reactions (positively or negatively) and responses to the officers commands in a proper and timely manner.

Currently reading out on the toxicology results with some very interesting findings about what was in his blood stream and the levels of those items.

They just asked how many potential jurors in the Voir Dire how many had CWP's. There were only 2 and each stated they would not be biased one way or the other.