TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:As a sort of general Las Vegas update, a year has passed since Erik Scott was shot by police outside the high end Summerlin Costco store.

baldeagle wrote:I don't know who all the LEOs (active, retired or military) on the forum, but Excalibur is a highly respected (at least by me) retired LEO, and he has commented several times in this thread. So has Pete Camp, who is an active duty LEO.

Kevinf2349 wrote:

philip964 wrote:
Its now Las Vegas's big turn to show us they know how to investigate a shooting, and present the facts in a complete, honest and straight forward manner.

I think that is about as likely as them calling Gil Grisom back in to investigate it!

I would like to think that all of what you wrote will happen, but the cynic in me just can't see it ever happening.

What I think will happen is that there will be insufficent evidence to call it anything but a righteous shoot. They are not about to throw 3 murd....whoops officers under the bus and place themselves in the media spotlight. LV is almost as corrupt as Chicago so I don't expect anything but plaudits for the shooters and a villifying of Mr Scott.

Rex B wrote:

Oldgringo wrote: It's not only the cops and Costco that want this incident to go away. Any and all who derive income from tourism in Vegas want it to go away. That would also include any media that receives advertising money to promote the place.

Then the best thing they can do is lay the cards on the table, and act appropriately if the cops were wrong. That means dismissal, criminal charges, and speedy, fair trials. Anything less and Las Vegas has a corrupt police department. If that's true, what else is corrupt?

WildBill wrote:Here's the link to a blog by Erik Scott's father http://erikbscott.com/blog/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I have emailed him to request permission to post portions of his blog on TexasCHLForum.

03Lightningrocks wrote:I am about sick of playing this game.... they straight up murdered an innocent man. that could be any one of us who posts on this forum. Think about it folks. If Erik had done anything remotely wrong, the tapes would never have stopped running about it. What happened was a bunch of attention starved morons working at Costco made the cops think something was going on that wasn't. Then the cops decided to execute a human instead of allowing the judicial process take place.

seniorshooteress wrote:I am anxiously awaiting the release of 911 tapes & being able to know what was on the survilance video. With the inquest being put off til who knows when, the real truth may never be available for the public. Clearly something needs to shake up the LVPD.

baldeagle wrote:

WildBill wrote:

baldeagle wrote:After everything I've read about this case (which is quite a lot), I'd hazard a guess that the inquest will find the shooting excusable (there are three possibilities; justified, excusable or criminal) and Costco and the City of Las Vegas will be paying a lot of money to fund the newly established Erik Scott Foundation.

Why would Costco or the City of Las Vegas pay for an "excusable" shooting?

The excusable ruling would be for the shooting. The reasoning I can see the inquest ruling using is that the reports from Costco led the police to be on a higher level of alert, which led them to shoot quicker than they might otherwise have or should have. I doubt seriously that the inquest would find their behavior criminal unless the video clearly shows that Erik never held a gun in his hand. Costco would be on the hook civilly for contributing to the image that led the police to shoot when they didn't need to.

Think of it this way. Costco calls 911 and says, we have a customer who is legally carrying but has not left when he was asked to. We'd like you to come and escort him from the store.

What would the police reaction have been? One or two cruisers, possibly three officers, they approach him inside the store and discuss the issue with him. They tell him that if he doesn't leave immediately, they will have to arrest him.

But Costco said they had a man with a gun, destroying merchandise, possibly on drugs or emotionally disturbed. The reaction of the police is quite different. Who is responsible for the police response? The police base their response on the report they get from the dispatcher, who is relaying information from the 911 call. They have no way of knowing that Erik isn't a threat, that yes he's armed, but he's licensed and he's behaving normally. (That's assuming that he wasn't a threat.) So if Costco's report to 911 was exaggeration or outright lies, they are civilly liable for Erik's death. Las Vegas would be on the hook civilly if the police reaction was found to be extreme. Especially if it can't be proven that Erik was pointing his gun at them.

Remember, in civil court the case is decided on the preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a much easier burden of proof. That's why OJ was found not guilty of criminal charges but was judged liable for the wrongful deaths of Nicole and Ron in the civil trial.

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.

seamusTX wrote:Let's try this again: Costco did not kill Mr. Scott. The police "allegedly" did. Even in Las Vegas, the police force is not a contract assassination squad—at least not these days. I can't speak about the past.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

TXlaw1 wrote:In fact one does, Jim or seamusTX, have "constitutionally protected rights" on the private property of another - including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You can call me Jim or Seamus. I also answer to Casey. I'm not fussy.

Please educate me about how the 5th or 14th amendment due process clause applies to non-governmental agencies.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote: You do not have "constitutionally protected rights" on the private property of another. If you want to make a speech in my living room, I might be in a good enough mood to roll my eyes and listen to you, or I might boot you out the door. - Jim