TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote: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

My guess is that Costco's executive management is liberal and anti-gun. Or perhaps I should say, they act like they're liberal and anti-gun.

baldeagle wrote:I believe very little of what Costco employees testified to. They claimed that Erik claimed he was a Green Beret. I doubt seriously that he ever made that claim. Erik's reputation was one of scrupulous honesty. They claimed that he was "agitated" and "angry", yet not one customer who observed him in the store testified to that. Their descriptions were "irked" and "irritated". (I suspect more than one member of this forum might feel the same way when challenged on the right to carry.) They testified that he was loud and upsetting other customers. Yet customers who testified that they walked right past Erik never even noticed that there was the supposed argument that he was engaged in. One customer said he heard Erik say, "Well I can do that in Texas", a fact to which not one Costco employee testified. I suspect that in the civil trial, the Costco employees will be systematically ripped to shreds by the Scott's attorney. At some point, the Loss Prevention Officer, one Shai Lairly, decided to call 911. At that point, Erik's fate was sealed. Lairly continually escalated his narrative to the point that the police had no choice but to believe that they would be confronting an agitated, gun-carrying, drugged up and completely unpredictable subject. If Costco had any sense at all, they would dismiss Lairly today. It might help to limit their liability. My sense is that Costco will defend him to the hilt, because other Costco employees have backed up his testimony on the witness stand.

Can't find any fault with your analysis. I would not be surprised to find that the employees were coached by the company and its attorneys to both coordinate their "testimony" and to eliminate any "testimony" that could incur liability for Costco. I would also not be at all surprised to discover that there was collusion between the prosecutor and Costco. It was clear from the outset that the process is designed to produce a particular outcome, not to discover the truth.

baldeagle wrote:One thing this has done is cause me to decide that my decision to carry is for my personal safety and the safety of my family, not a civic duty or an opportunity for me to help others. I am much less likely to get involved in someone else's problem to the point of using my gun unless I am absolutely certain that I have no other choice. I'll be a good witness, but if you're looking for a bodyguard, you should have carried yourself. It may be crass to say it, but if I have to decide between your life and mine, that decision was made a long, long time ago. I will not risk my life for you unless the odds are highly in my favor.

This is a dramatically different approach to carrying than the one I adopted early on when I first made the decision to get my CHL. And it's a direct result of Erik's death.

I think that's a very good decision on your part. That is the course I intended from the start and it is also the attitude and approach emphasized in my CHL class.

baldeagle wrote: I've just realized, as a result of this incident, that the possibility exists that I could be shot to death because I was carrying and an incident occurred like the Costco incident and the police were called to the scene under what they perceived to be very dangerous circumstances and I reacted in a way that might be misinterpreted by the police.

The thing is though, if events develop along those lines, you could be shot by the police in your own home too. The only alternative is not to defend yourself, because you could also be shot just wielding a baseball bat in your own home when you consider worst case scenarios. I read of a case where an armed security guard came upon a man sitting astride a woman holding a bloody knife in both hands --like he was about to stab her again. The guard shot and killed him. Turned out the man was an undercover or off duty cop who had been stabbed by the woman and had just pulled the knife out of his own chest when the security guard came upon the scene.

But plenty of people get shot who aren't carrying weapons...in fact I think there was a case, also in Las Vegas, where the police shot a guy with a basketball. You need to consider the possibilities for friendly fire mistakes but it seems to me that if you find yourself in a situation where you need to use deadly force you either have the means to use it or you don't. If you need it and don't have it the subsequent police response is going to be irrelevant. Once you deploy a weapon you're at risk from friendly fire, but even including the risk of friendly fire I still think the risk of being killed by a criminal --or worse, if for example, we can't defend a loved one-- is far greater than the risk of being killed by the police.

WildBill wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

PeteCamp wrote:And let me point out one thing we may not have considered. IF the LVMPD officers acted in bad faith and broke the law, and IF they are convicted of murder, it WILL send a very chilling message to every officer who puts on a gun and badge to go to work in the morning.

The LVMPD officers will NEVER be convicted of murder.

If LEOs can shoot a guy 41 times for trying to show his wallet and not be convicted of murder, I don't think there is any question they can shoot someone who actually has a gun seven times, and not be convicted of murder.

That was not my point. My point is that the shooting of Mr. Scott does not have the elements of the crime of murder. See SeamusTx's earlier post discussing the definition of murder.

We're sort of in agreement and coming to the same place from different directions. The Diallo case I was referring to had some of the same elements as this case, except that Diallo turned out to be unarmed. Those officers were tried for second degree murder and acquitted. I think many people may use the term "murder" in more of a moral sense --unjust killing-- than in strict accordance with the correct legal definition.

baldeagle wrote:I understand what y'all are saying, but your rights don't mean squat on the street. If a police officer abuses your rights, you can take him to court, but that doesn't help you when you're being abused.

Read the thread No Warrant? No Exigent circumstances? No Problem. How will that man ever be made whole again? He plead to a misdemeanor charge because the DA threatened him with four felony counts. He was completely within his rights and did nothing wrong, yet he now has a record that will be with him the remainder of his life. And he's very lucky he wasn't shot dead, just like Erik.

Erik doesn't even have that option. He's dead. His 2A rights didn't mean a thing when the officers killed him. If that doesn't make you at least stop and think, then you're not being realistic. I don't live in a high crime area. I don't frequent high crime areas. So I have to weigh the danger of being shot by police because I was legally carrying against the very remote possibility that something might happen to me. In my home, I have no problem. Elsewhere? I'm not so sure any more. Erik's death weighs heavy on my heart, for more reasons than one.

I can't afford an arsenal like some of you have. I can't afford to buy a different gun for each situation I might carry in. So I have to decide if the one gun I have is worth carrying in public, where someone might misinterpret my intentions and then, when panic sets in, I die because a cop was told I was armed and erratic and extremely dangerous and arrived with adrenalin pumping, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat or the slightest misinterpreted move on my part.

I've always thought of cops as the good guys. I still do, but now I think of them as extremely dangerous good guys. A threat to my life, if I'm carrying. I don't like feeling this way, but how can you not after what happened to Erik?

While I also find this incident very troubling and share your concerns I think we need to keep things in perspective. Maybe this has happened other times that I'm unaware of but this is the only incident like this I've ever heard of. I've heard of many other instances of LEO's challenging people with CHLs and no one getting shot. I personally know someone who was made at a convenience store (in Florida). Someone called the police. When they arrived they just asked him to see his license and told him to be more careful. I was recently questioned by a Game Warden and Border Patrol agents (different times during the same afternoon in the same general location in West Texas) while armed with a large frame semi-auto and a J-frame revolver --if they noticed then they didn't care since no one said anything.

The guy in the No Warrant video used very poor judgment when he tried to pull out his cell phone at gun point --still, he didn't get shot. The charges are something else again, and I think have to do with the general environment created by 30 odd years of anti-gun propaganda in the media. What wouldn't have raised an eyebrow when I was a teenager now frightens ignorant people saturated by this media propaganda and results in "shots fired" calls to the police. The hysteria is no doubt worse in places like the People's Republic of California. The video doesn't say, but it's also possible this guy has a neighbor who doesn't like him, or is anti-gun, and called out the cops trying to cause problems for him.

Yes, if I ever have cause to use a weapon in self-defense I will be concerned about being mistaken for a bad guy --even if it's in my home should the police arrive while the situation is hot-- and I will take precautions to prevent such a mistake from being made. I won't be making any sudden moves, arguing, or pulling out any cell phones or wallets --and I won't be chasing bad guys onto the street with a gun in my hands. I followed various precautions for traffic stops --like keeping both hands on the steering wheel-- even before getting a CHL. I think when you look at the odds you're not at all likely to be shot by the police simply for legally carrying a weapon --at least in states like Texas where concealed carry is relatively common. I will consider this a cautionary tale but it doesn't make me fear I'm going to get shot by the police for merely carrying.

WildBill wrote:

PeteCamp wrote:And let me point out one thing we may not have considered. IF the LVMPD officers acted in bad faith and broke the law, and IF they are convicted of murder, it WILL send a very chilling message to every officer who puts on a gun and badge to go to work in the morning.

The LVMPD officers will NEVER be convicted of murder.

If LEOs can shoot a guy 41 times for trying to show his wallet and not be convicted of murder, I don't think there is any question they can shoot someone who actually has a gun seven times, and not be convicted of murder.

seamusTX wrote:

This incident has turned into a liars' contest. I wonder if they will ever get the truth out.

FWIW, the dead man had no criminal or mental illness record and was gainfully employed.

- Jim

And who has the biggest motive for lying? Witnesses who don't know the guy or the cops who shot him?