TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:I believe we all here treasure all the rights in the constitution. The second amendment probably being one of our favorites. However, most of us would agree that the first amendment is probably the most basic and most important. The freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are so important that no country could be considered free without them.

Today in a unexpected move. Costco's lawyers tried to ban peaceful protest and picketing on public property in front of one of its stores (you guess which one). A motion was brought before a Las Vegas judge to do just that. The motion also named one hundred people by name who were to be specifically banned. The list was not made public but was thought to be made up of facebook friends of Erik Scott's memorial page.

The judge rejected Costco's motion outright (even though again it was a one sided argument again, maybe they were feeling cocky after their apparent victory this week and thought all judges would just lay down)

So I applaud this judge in Las Vegas.

And begin to wonder about the sanity of the executive management at Costco. This sort of path, where you try and silence the American public from free expression, will eventually back fire in a big way.

God bless America

It looks like they're coming out at the upper levels of policy makers for the company now. Before, we could say it was a young, inexperienced, and rogue security guard. Now, they're actively and publicly defending him and going much further in stating that Costco does not support your constitutional rights--any of them--if they infringe on their profit. That's the ringer for me.

seamusTX wrote:Costco warns Erik Scott supporters not to picket or protest.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financia ... HRRV00.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I take back every cautionary statement I made about Costco. As far as I'm concerned, they can eat toxic waste and suffer the consequences.

- Jim

IIRC, his dad has been hosting a monthly vigil at the store. It seems like this is a message directly for him saying they're ready to play hardball now.

If they get enough pressure from customers and stockholders, they can put political and social pressure on others who can make things happen. While it won't be a direct cause and effect of telling them to release them and them doing it, it can play a significant role in the eventual release.

WildBill wrote:At 5:54 minutes, it clearly states the the manager told Kirk Scott to leave because 413s are not allowed. At 6:04 minutes, the dispatcher says that the manager is a Green Beret and is allowed to carry a 413 [handgun].

Why had the manager already come up to him and told him to leave at least ten minutes before and he wasn't gone yet? Stupid, fatal decision.

This reminds me of the hypothetical situation discussed a while back on another thread. You're eating at a restaurant and rudely wipe your mouth with your forearm, thus accidentally revealing your weapon. A manager sees it and asks you to leave. What do you do? Do you stop to pay first and risk them saying you didn't leave promptly? Do you leave and risk them saying you didn't pay and committed theft of service? In a grocery store setting, that isn't an issue because you haven't consumed anything. You can just walk right out, which is what Erik should have done.

WildBill wrote:Around 6 minutes into the first tape, I heard the dispatcher say that the [Costco] Manager was a Green Beret and had permission to carry a 413 [firearm]. I can see telling the dispatcher about the manager carrying a gun, but why the bit about being a Green Beret?

A fellow CHL holder should have known better! Unbelievable!

Edited to fix quote boxes.

seniorshooteress wrote:Were these dispatch tapes "leaked" or actually submitted by LVPD to the public?

To clarify, these are not dispatch tapes. These are radio traffic tapes. Many people, from journalists to HAM operators to retired LEO to random citizens, have police scanners that listens to the radio traffic. This is a recording from one. It does not include recordings from the phone call to dispatch, just what dispatch radioed to the field.

seniorshooteress wrote: I don't think that filing of, or collecting on, a lawsuit filed against LVPD will change anything about the way they handle things on the street or 911 calls. It will be business as usual for LVPD once all the dust has cleared and this case has gone away.

Police departments are highly political places. They answer to the city council and who they hire as their leadership is primarily a political decision. I don't mean political in the Republican/Democrat context, just the primary definition of the word.

Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in other group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

A successful lawsuit would most definitely affect political change within the police department. It is unfortunate that a man (rather, how many men?) had to die in order to set up the circumstances for such a change. The direction that change takes is up to the leadership. It could become more hardened, more secretive, less transparent or it could decide to do things right. That's up to the city council and depends on what they do regarding the police chief.

Keith B wrote:It would be a hard row to hoe in court proving that a 911 caller had malicious intent, much less intent to get the guy killed, when they placed a call about a man acting suspiciously and carrying a gun in a store. A caller that made a specifically provable false claim, like 'This guy just killed my brother and he has a gun concealed in his waistband and said he would kill any cop that tried to take it from him' when it hadn't happened might be grounds for a case, but I doubt very seriously any of these calls would qualify.

Is the legal criteria for manslaughter malicious intent? On a lot of things like that, it includes recklessness, which is a lower standard of an average citizen knowing it would put a person at risk.

seniorshooteress wrote:Maybe it is time to get those CCW badges we all used to make fun of. Maybe if something like that were visible we wouldn't get shot. Could pin it to your holster if you OWB carry.

If this guy was waltzing along peacefully in a crowd and was ambushed with commands to get on the ground and drop the gun from a distance and then shot, tazed, and shot again before he even knew what hit him, then how would a little badge on his waistband have made a difference?

Indeed, how many instances do we know of in which police beat or killed people for completely different reasons not involving a gun? There was that college kid who got tasered when Kerry was speaking because he wanted to ask a question and, of course, Rodney King, and numerous others. The fact that this was a MWAG is different, but the situation is not unique. The police have to make snap judgments and sometimes they make the wrong choice, and sometimes that wrong choice would have been preventable had the dept chosen better officers, provided better leadership and training, and followed safety protocols.

In this instance, it appears it was preventable. Would a CHLer have had sufficient cause to fire in fear for his life if he were in the police's shoes? I don't think so. If they felt safe enough to let him move about in a crowd freely, safe enough to approach him, then they did not think he was an immediate threat and they put him in the position in which the intensity was increased by deciding to make contact in a crowded area and deciding to give him directions related to the movement of the gun inside that crowd. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

But I don't think it is so much an issue for CHLers as it is an issue for citizens that we have poorly trained officers who will place us in poor positions then act aggressively against us due to the stress they created. There are many, many fine officers and they shouldn't tolerate officers like this who bring them down. They do too often because of the brotherhood code among them and the fear of retaliation for whistle-blowing. Unfortunately, I think the leadership is most often to blame. They hire them, retain them, lead and train them, hear the complaints against them, and still keep them on and keep the environment that allows this stupidity to thrive to flourish. And now another guy is dead because of it.

baldeagle wrote:Also, if there were "numerous" 911 calls, that would mean that more than two or three people noticed that he had a gun. How could he be blissfully unaware of this?

Or one person noted it, told an employee, both called, hung up after talking to them, and then a manager called.

WildBill wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Keith B wrote:We may be waiting awhile to find out what actually happened in this incident. According to the article in this link the video will not be released by police until after the coroner's inquest is complete sometime in September.

http://www.8newsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=12801643" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Serious question: why does it take 2-3 months for a coroner to say the guy died by gun shots? Document the trajectory and you're done. What else is there?

A coroner's inquest is different than an autopsy. Similar to a trial, they call witnesses to testify. I imagine the county attorney needs time to examine the evidence and prepare. In addition to the autopsy, I am sure that they will do alcohol and drug tests on the deceased. Sometimes that can take several weeks to get the lab reports. It also gives time for the furor about the shooting to subside.

Very interesting! Thank you.

Keith B wrote:We may be waiting awhile to find out what actually happened in this incident. According to the article in this link the video will not be released by police until after the coroner's inquest is complete sometime in September.

http://www.8newsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=12801643" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Serious question: why does it take 2-3 months for a coroner to say the guy died by gun shots? Document the trajectory and you're done. What else is there?

That's scary!!