TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:Lots of experts in the room. I should excuse myself.

Gig, I see he's been banned, but I want to personally apologize for his remarks. They are clearly not representative of the community, of which you are a valued member.

Another settlement by Las Vegas LEO. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/0 ... 65992.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

puma guy wrote:This is not directly related to the Erik Scott incident but this incident happened about the same time. The family of Trevon Cole filed suit in his fatal shooting during a SWAT led "drug" bust. The victim was unarmed and kneeling in his bathroom. Las Vegas Metro's Financial Affairs is voting on a $1.7 million settlement with the family. The suit was asking for $10 million. This shooting was also ruled to be justified.

Wow! That's interesting. I would imagine that means the Scott's case will settle for a great deal more.

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:Anything new with this case?

The Sherrif and DA both won reelection by wide margins, and two more people have been killed by LVMPD, one of whom was unarmed. The lawsuit has been filed, but it will be a while before that ends up in court, if it ever does.

Beiruty wrote:Do the civil rights suit have a punishment phase? Could someone go to jail? I guess, any corrective measures can be in the included in the settlement.

The normal punishment is monetary. I think the Scotts will be looking for mea culpas, public admissions of guilt, dramatic changes in the training programs and firings from LVMPD. From Costco, I suspect they will ask that Shai Lierley be fired but they will demand changes in the video surveillance systems as well.

Again, I think the Scotts could care less about the money. Any money they get will probably pay their lawyers fees and the balance will go to charities.

Beiruty wrote:this will never go to trial. It will be settled with multi-million dollars offered to shut up and go away.

I disagree. I think the Scott family has no intentions of settling for any amount of money. In fact, if you read the story, Bill Scott is quoted saying that it isn't about the money, it's about holding LVMPD and Costco responsible for what they've done.

I doubt there is enough money in Vegas to make Bill Scott go away. Money works on most people but fails utterly with men of integrity.

The Scott family has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the LVMPD and Costco.

Purplehood wrote:

philip964 wrote: 2. Never met the security guard who phoned 911 and pointed him out to the police. Apparently this guy lied big time according to Erik. Erik never said he was a green beret, said he was a former army officer. (green beret is a Hollywood name, a former army officer would say "ranger" instead but he said neither)

Why "Ranger"? Green Berets are Special Forces. Being a ranger does not make one SF.

/sorry for the off-topic note.

The Special Forces were an offshoot of the Army Rangers and the OSS after WWII. The 75th Ranger Regiment is currently serving in the Special Forces. Recruits for Delta Force come from both Special Forces and the 75th Ranger Regiment.

I noticed that the moderators removed the article. Here is the response from Bill Scott requesting permission to reproduce.

Bill Scott October 21 at 9:30pm Report
Paul,
You're cleared to reproduce it in whole. I'd appreciate a "credit," so readers know who's responsible for it. I'll take either credit or blame.
Cheers,
Bill

So, we have permission from the author to reproduce here.

EDITED TO ADD:
This article was posted to the Facebook Group "In Memory of Erik Scott" by Bill Scott, Erik's dad and is reproduced here in its entirety with his permission.

Bill Scott (NOTE: This treatise, told from Erik's perspective, should be viewed as my personal opinion, based on information received to date. — William B. Scott/October 20, 2010.)

Folks who followed this story should definitely read this article by Erik Scott's father. You won't believe how different his story of what happened is from the official version.

A fascinating take on the second amendment as it relates to Erik's case. This should be read by the many people who can't understand why we carry guns.

WildBill wrote:Maybe that will be Erik Scott's legacy.

And perhaps Las Vegas will have a new sheriff in November. The Scott's have endorsed Laurie Bisch, Sheriff Gillespie's opponent in the fall election.

philip964 wrote:Well I really thought any new news on the Erik Scott case would have gone to nothing until the law suits are filed, but I was wrong.

Remember how we have recently learned that Erik now has committed a felony since he had a gun in his possession that he has not qualified for (even though the two guns are very similar). Well what if I told you the Public Administrator for the City of Las Vegas accompanied by the Las Vegas police broke into Erik's locked apartment in the evening of the day of the shooting without a warrant.

The family was trying as quickly as possible to get to the apartment but arrived after the PA had left. The purpose of the visit by the PA was to secure the already locked apartment and remove and secure any of those dangerous guns Erik might have had there.

The girlfriend after seeing her boyfriend executed by the police and being confined to a room at the Costco was "not cooperating with the police" in their attempt to enter the apartment. She had a key.

Here is a you tube audio of the PA calling to get permission from the family to break the door down.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I understand if the crime happened at his apartment and it was unsecure after the crime, but I see no reason without a warrant to search and remove things from his apartment after this incident at Costco. Maybe someone who is more familiar with the law might speak up.

Otherwise the stink is getting pretty thick here.

The story the Scott family seems to be working on is that Erik never removed his holstered weapon and the Ruger 380 was planted on him by the police. Whether they have anything in the way of evidence to prove this, I don't know, but if they can prove it in court, this case will explode on the national scene, I would think. One thing I am now convinced of is that Erik never had time to remove his holster. No matter how many times you run the scenario, less than three seconds is simply not enough time to respond to the officer's command and remove your holster.

chartreuse wrote:Of course it can and does. But LV appears to have form for gleefully covering it up.

Edited to add: My use of the word "gleeful" is deliberate. When the first man that I made a case against was jailed, I celebrated. It took me about a day and a half to figure out that that attitude was not very Christian and, instead, I should rather have felt quiet remorse that the man's actions had, justifiably, led to his being deprived of his liberty. It's very easy to fall into a "them and us" mindset, but I don't think it's particularly helpful.

Interesting that you say that, chartreuse. I was foreman on a jury in a DUI case. Once we had agreed on the verdict, I said, "God help us. We have just convicted a fellow citizen of a crime. This will haunt her the rest of her life." I knew it was the right verdict, but I still felt lousy about it.

baldeagle wrote:I challenge Jensen to cite the Nevada statute that makes it a felony to carry a semiautomatic that you have not been permitted to carry concealed. The only thing I could find was the previously cited $25 civil penalty.

I think I've figured out how they're coming up with this felony claim. NRS 202.350 1) d) 3) makes it a category C felony punishable by 1 to 5 years in state prison and up to a $10,000 fine for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Nevada CCW requires that you qualify for each semiautomatic you want to carry by make, model and caliber. (So you could carry any one of your six Kimber 1911s, but the minute you buy a Sig 1911 you have to qualify and be permitted for that one as well.) So their interpretation of the law is that, if you haven't been permitted for that make, model and caliber, even if you are a lawfully permitted CCW holder, you have committed a felony. I suspect that's not what the legislature had in mind when they wrote the laws, but that's how LVMPD interprets it. So, even though Erik was qualified and permitted to carry the Keltec P-3AT, he committed a felony by carrying the Ruger, even though it's a very similar gun.

Now the question is, what gun(s) was Erik carrying? The cops went to his house and, despite the insistent protests of his father, searched his house shortly after he was killed. Did they grab the Ruger and substitute it for the Keltec to cover their rear ends? I wouldn't put it past them at all. According to a family member, he only had one gun on him and he never drew that one.

I've thought about this some. How can witnesses testify to someone reaching for or pulling out a gun if a person never pulled it out? Well, no honest citizen wants to believe that the police would shoot someone who wasn't pointing a gun at them. So, one person swore he saw a Sig pointing directly at the officers and not in a holster. (Clearly mistaken.) Another swore he saw Erik make a move that was clearly the drawing of a weapon to fire. (Clearly mistaken - the hammer was not cocked,) A number of witnesses said they saw what they thought was a gun. Others said they saw a gun in a holster. (Could they have seen the holstered gun on the ground after the incident and thought, "Well, he must have pointed it at them.")?

The civil trial could be very interesting.