TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:

OldSchool wrote:Except, as of now, I'm not sure I want to hear the outcome of the civil suit, since it will also be held in LV.

Federal court and state court are as different as "Looney Tunes" and "Twelve Angry Men."

- Jim

PeteCamp wrote:OldSchool....skub made an excellent case of the point I raised. I think you misunderstood what I said. I did not advocate rioting or attacking the jail because of any disagreement I might have with a decision handed down by a jury. And you are right - if we the people don't believe in the fairness and justice of our criminal justice system, then we do indeed have a serious problem. One that must be corrected legally.

skub wrote:Snip

But it must be remembered that this is not a trial by jury - it is a coroner's inquest with a jury. There is not a prosecution and a defense, with both sides having equal access to the evidence, and each having the opportunity to present their case, call their own witnesses, and cross-examine the other side's witnesses. As I understand the format, there is only a prosecutor, presenting the information that supports his conclusions. There is a proverb which says, "The first to plead his case seems right until another comes and examines him. I have discovered the value of this wisdom by having ignored it more than once, only to discover that what seemed so reasonable according to one man's argument turned out to be a significant distortion of the truth.

It would be nice if it were possible to just "present all the facts of the incident", and let the facts speak for themselves. And if there were nothing at stake, that would, perhaps, be possible, although I suspect that there is always something at stake. In this case, however, there is very much at stake - the issue of who is responsible for Eric Scott's death. Not, "who pulled the trigger", but whose decisions and actions caused the events to unfold as they did. Ostensibly, the question is, "Were the government's agents justified in shooting Eric Scott, or not?" However, the answer to this question is predicated on Eric Scott's actions, and whether or not he did anything to justify the government's agents decision to shoot him. So, the reality must be that Eric Scott is being tried, and this without representation, without the opportunity to challenge his accusers.

So this process is not the process that is guaranteed by our Constitution, and I don't see how we can have any confidence in any conclusion that places the burden of the responsibility on Eric Scott. I don't know what he did or didn't do, but if he is responsible, I don't believe it can be satisfactorily proven in a coroner's inquest.

baldeagle wrote:

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

I have heard no mention of the second pistol in inquest testimony. The inquest testimony has been very frustrating. Lots of ground has not been covered and many stones are unturned.

PeteCamp wrote:

OldSchool wrote:

philip964 wrote:In case you would like to vote on whether the shooting was justified, excusable or criminal. You have a chance.

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its on the right side near the top, you don't need to join or anything pretty easy, they give you the results after you cast your vote.

Sorry, I have a problem with this. Example: O. J. Simpson was cleared by a jury, by rule of law. He was, however, convicted by public opinion, driven by relentless news reporting. I continue to have a bad feeling about this as mob rule (historically the cause of lynchings).

Public "voting" on one's guilt falls into the same category. We should never (an exception to "never" say "never") suffer people to be tried in the headlines (or Internet).

Oldschool....I somewhat agree with what you are saying here. However, there is a caveat. If you watch all of the evidence presented live in the courtroom, then you are effectively in the seat of the juror. And remember that this is to be a jury of your peers - you and I are peers. If we see all the evidence, exactly as presented to the jury, then we the people do have a right to decide. Our opinion and judgement carries no official weight, but is not anywhere near what usually drove lynch mobs. Research shows mob lynchings were historically the result of either particularly heinous acts, or patently unfair verdicts. That is just not the case today with televised courtroom proceedings. We should always keep in mind that rule of law, as handed down in a courtroom, does not always represent either truth or justice.

philip964 wrote:In case you would like to vote on whether the shooting was justified, excusable or criminal. You have a chance.

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its on the right side near the top, you don't need to join or anything pretty easy, they give you the results after you cast your vote.

philip964 wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Having reread some of my posts, I want to be very clear about my thinking. Erik Scott would be alive today if he had simply followed the officer's orders. He made a terrible mistake by attempting to surrender his weapon to the officer, and he paid with his life. I believe Erik was offended that he was being challenged by the officers (based on testimony) and irked that his 2A rights were being questioned. Similar sentiments have been expressed here by members of this forum. The one takeaway I devoutly pray that we all get from this horrible incident is that when LEOs challenge you, obey immediately, without arguing and without questioning and never touch your weapon under any circumstances. Even if you have to swallow giant chunks of pride and belief, shut up and obey immediately. There will be plenty of time later to sort out who was right and who was wrong and to file complaints if you feel your rights were violated. If you do not obey immediately and without resistance, you may never get the chance to complain about your rights.

I believe this was a bad shoot. I believe Officer Mosher is a bad cop who should be dismissed from the force and never allowed to serve in law enforcement anywhere again. I believe the two rookies who fired made a terrible mistake initiated by adrenaline and possibly fear but precipitated by Mosher's abysmal lack of judgment. He was the senior officer. He is responsible for the outcome. He should be and needs to be held accountable. I'm unsure whether criminal charges should be brought against him, but I'm leaning toward the opinion that they should be. I think manslaughter is an appropriate charge. I hope and pray the inquest jury rules the shooting, at a minimum, as excusable but wish they would rule it criminal. Given the outcome of all previous inquests, I don't hold out much hope of that. I fear the verdict will be justified. That would be a travesty.

As further information comes out, the list of likely scenarios gets refined as is normally the case. From the testimony so far, it appears that Erik attempted to follow the first part of the guideline above when he was told to "Drop it". Since the gun wasn't in his hand, the only way to comply was to retrieve it from his waistband. He hadn't considered the second part, which in that instance was contradictory. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of our Forum members hadn't given thought to this circumstance prior to the Las Vegas tragedy either.

As I pointed out in one of my earliest posts on this thread, the tactical management of the situation by the responding officers was absolutely atrocious, needlessly exposed everyone involved to extreme danger, and the fact that it produced a tragic result is not surprising. The only part I do find surprising is that with so many people so nearby no one else was hurt by the police gunfire.

As is true with vehicle wrecks, aircraft crashes, and industrial catastrophes (think BP oil rig blowout), a competent investigation always reveals that the event occurred as it did not due to a single factor or error, but at the end of a cascading stream of issues like bad training, equipment failures, misinformation or misinterpretation of good information, bad judgment, etc. I expect that when the final truth comes out (and I think it will because Erik's father will push it as long as he is alive) we will find incompetence and poor judgment on the part of Costco employees, incompetence, poor judgment, poor training or poor retention of training, and the eagerness to take a life I have discussed in other threads on the police side, and a lack of knowledge of how to manage a confrontation with badly performing police as well as possible impairment of judgment from pain medication on Erik's side were all contributing factors.

There may be others as well. Only time, evidence, and testimony will tell.

Well said.