CHL holder killed by police in Las Vegas at a Costco

[Hoi Polloi]

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?

[seniorshooteress]

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?

If he had been facing them and raised his hands/arms they may have at least paused at seeing something that looked like a badge before shooting. Surely he was facing them at some point. Not saying it would be like wearing bullet proof clothing, just a pause and reflect type of thing.

[Excaliber]

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?

If he had been facing them and raised his hands/arms they may have at least paused at seeing something that looked like a badge before shooting. Surely he was facing them at some point. Not saying it would be like wearing bullet proof clothing, just a pause and reflect type of thing.

IFF (Identification - friend or foe) is a serious issue for both CHL / CCW holders and LEO's alike (see the recent thread on this topic).

In Mr. Scott's situation, it's highly unlikely that any little piece of anything that would have been concealed from casual view would have made a difference. A T-shirt emblazoned with 4 inch high CCW lettering might have been noticed, but would likely have caused him even more problems earlier.

In a surprise police challenge situation like Mr. Scott faced, w ID as a good guy without good guy uniform clothing takes time that's not available. The best course of action in this highly volatile circumstance is to behave in a way that is clearly NOT an immediate threat to slow things down and begin the deescalation process.

With the luxury of reflection after the incident, if Mr. Scott had stood stock still when challenged until the officers' orders were clear and unambiguous and kept his arms away from his body and his hands open there would have been no stimulus for an officer's perception of an immediate threat and the incident most likely would have ended in a way that left him alive.

[jester]

With the luxury of reflection after the incident, if Mr. Scott had stood stock still when challenged until the officers' orders were clear and unambiguous and kept his arms away from his body and his hands open there would have been no stimulus for an officer's perception of an immediate threat and the incident most likely would have ended in a way that left him alive.

Maybe. It's also possible they would have shot him for not following their orders.

In any case, the video would answer a lot of questions. Strange that it's being suppressed.

[Excaliber]

With the luxury of reflection after the incident, if Mr. Scott had stood stock still when challenged until the officers' orders were clear and unambiguous and kept his arms away from his body and his hands open there would have been no stimulus for an officer's perception of an immediate threat and the incident most likely would have ended in a way that left him alive.

Maybe. It's also possible they would have shot him for not following their orders.

In any case, the video would answer a lot of questions. Strange that it's being suppressed.

I am not a lawyer, but to my knowledge, failure to follow a police command does not constitute justification for the use of deadly force anywhere in the United States, even when that order consists of a warning to cease an immediate threat to an innocent party - e.g., pointing a gun and refusing to drop it.

In that case the justification stems from the conduct that creates an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death to innocent persons, not the failure to comply with an order. The noncompliance is evidence of the actor's intent to continue with his deadly conduct and can be used to support the decision to use deadly force, but it is not the core element in the justification.

Here's the relevant portion of the Nevada Penal Code that governed officers' recent actions at Costco:

200.140 Justifiable homicide by public officer. Homicide is justifiable when committed by a public officer, or person acting under his command and in his aid, in the following cases:

1. In obedience to the judgment of a competent court.
2. When necessary to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.
3. When necessary:
(a) In retaking an escaped or rescued prisoner who has been committed, arrested for, or convicted of a felony;
(b) In attempting, by lawful ways or means, to apprehend or arrest a person; or
(c) In lawfully suppressing a riot or preserving the peace.

The key words here are "necessary" and "actual resistance".

[baldeagle]

Yesterday was our 38th anniversary. The wife and I drove to Mineral Wells and stayed in the Silk Stocking Row Bed and Breakfast. Did some sightseeing and had a lot of time to talk. She asked me if I would have carried on the trip, if I could have. (I'm still waiting on the background check - seems like it takes forever.) I told her I honestly didn't know. I'm comfortable with the idea of being armed at home and having a loaded weapon in the car, but I'm just not sure any more about carrying other than that.

I may have created a false impression with my posts. I don't think that I would be shot simply for carrying. (If I gave that impression, I apologize) 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. Yes, TAM, concealed means concealed, but who among us can guarantee that we will never be outed no matter how hard we work to prevent it? Who can guarantee that, if you are asked to leave and you immediately comply, that the police won't still be called and the situation won't still escalte as it did in Erik's case? Who can guarantee that, even if you do everything the police ask of you, an office with a different point of view won't interpret your actions as a threat and fire? We all know that once the first shot is fired, all the officers will fire and you will be dead.

Who's willing to bet their life on it? Because if you're carrying, we now know you could be. I'm not sure I am any more.

The militarization of our police departments has been ongoing since the invention of SWAT. I think it has arrived at a point where a counterbalance is needed. I absolutely do NOT want police officers to be put at additional risk just so I can feel comfortable carrying. OTOH, our troops now fight with ROE that require them not to fire unless fired upon. Even then they can't return fire if innocent lives are at risk. If our military men and women can fight an enemy like the Taliban with such restrictive ROE, then perhaps it's time to rethink the rules for our LEO community as well?

I definitely think that the LEO and CHL communities need to reach out to each other, and I think work needs to be done to develop ROE that both communities clearly understand. For me personally, as a result of this incident, I am dramatically less likely to get involved (with the use of my gun) in a life threatening situation in which neither I nor my immediately family are at risk. I am a great deal more likely to be as good a witness as possible without putting myself at any risk of having to draw my gun. Because the simple act of making others aware that I am armed, even if I don't draw, increases my risk of being shot dramatically. That's one of the lessons I have taken from Erik's death. Another is that if I am armed and I can see a police officer, my hands will be in the air immediately, even if I'm only peripherally involved.

[mgood]

. . . who among us can guarantee that we will never be outed no matter how hard we work to prevent it? Who can guarantee that, if you are asked to leave and you immediately comply, that the police won't still be called and the situation won't still escalte as it did in Erik's case? Who can guarantee that, even if you do everything the police ask of you, an office with a different point of view won't interpret your actions as a threat and fire?

There are no guarantees. Who can guarantee that you won't be run over by a car, struck by lightening, or bit by a rattlesnake? I think the odds of those are much greater than the things you're concerned about. Carrying a weapon reduces some dangers while increasing others. I firmly believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, by far. In the end of course, you have to make your own decisions, but I really think you're letting a single, freak incident stir you up more than the situation warrants. I would think that shopping at Costco while carrying concealed is still much safer than driving.
Sorry, I don't mean to make light of your concerns. I'm just trying to put them in perspective.

[Excaliber]

Yesterday was our 38th anniversary. The wife and I drove to Mineral Wells and stayed in the Silk Stocking Row Bed and Breakfast. Did some sightseeing and had a lot of time to talk. She asked me if I would have carried on the trip, if I could have. (I'm still waiting on the background check - seems like it takes forever.) I told her I honestly didn't know. I'm comfortable with the idea of being armed at home and having a loaded weapon in the car, but I'm just not sure any more about carrying other than that.

I may have created a false impression with my posts. I don't think that I would be shot simply for carrying. (If I gave that impression, I apologize) 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. Yes, TAM, concealed means concealed, but who among us can guarantee that we will never be outed no matter how hard we work to prevent it? Who can guarantee that, if you are asked to leave and you immediately comply, that the police won't still be called and the situation won't still escalte as it did in Erik's case? Who can guarantee that, even if you do everything the police ask of you, an office with a different point of view won't interpret your actions as a threat and fire? We all know that once the first shot is fired, all the officers will fire and you will be dead.

Who's willing to bet their life on it? Because if you're carrying, we now know you could be. I'm not sure I am any more.

The militarization of our police departments has been ongoing since the invention of SWAT. I think it has arrived at a point where a counterbalance is needed. I absolutely do NOT want police officers to be put at additional risk just so I can feel comfortable carrying. OTOH, our troops now fight with ROE that require them not to fire unless fired upon. Even then they can't return fire if innocent lives are at risk. If our military men and women can fight an enemy like the Taliban with such restrictive ROE, then perhaps it's time to rethink the rules for our LEO community as well?

I definitely think that the LEO and CHL communities need to reach out to each other, and I think work needs to be done to develop ROE that both communities clearly understand. For me personally, as a result of this incident, I am dramatically less likely to get involved (with the use of my gun) in a life threatening situation in which neither I nor my immediately family are at risk. I am a great deal more likely to be as good a witness as possible without putting myself at any risk of having to draw my gun. Because the simple act of making others aware that I am armed, even if I don't draw, increases my risk of being shot dramatically. That's one of the lessons I have taken from Erik's death. Another is that if I am armed and I can see a police officer, my hands will be in the air immediately, even if I'm only peripherally involved.

Bald Eagle,

I understand your concerns, but I wouldn't take what happened at the Nevada Costco and generalize it too much. LEO's encounter armed citizens all the time. They manage to figure out who's who and manage the situations well in the overwhelming majority of cases. Here in Texas, an officer who is advised that someone is a CHL holder and is carrying is at least as likely to shrug and move onas he is to do anything else.

I have seen some (tiny and rare) agencies where the leadership instructs its officers to shoot anyone with a gun who is not a member of that agency. In view of the fact that other LEO's, FBI agents, military investigators, etc. don't have to get their permission to enter the jurisdiction, that's openly inviting disaster and should be grounds for removing those administrators from positions where they can do damage with their gross incompetence.

"Contagious shooting" (some officers firing only because others did) is a mark of an agency with a drastically deficient training program. Even when shooting is justified, not every officer at a scene may be in a position to see the justification. A well trained and conscientious officer must and will hold his fire until he is both individually justified in using DPF and he believes it is necessary to do so.

As I see it, the takeaways from the Costco incident should be:

1. There are good reasons why it's important for someone authorized to carry a concealed handgun to keep it hidden - regardless if you're LEO or CHL
2. It also important to understand the dynamics of a situation where a police challenge is issued to someone they believe is armed, and to act in a manner that clearly doesn't present a threat and doesn't force officers to make instant life or death decisions.
3. There are many risks in life, and a reasonable person balances his responses according to the likelihood and severity of those risks. There are a lot more
innocent folks robbed, murdered, assaulted, and raped in this country than there are CHL holders mistakenly shot by police. That's why most of our members will continue to carry after adjusting their planning to include good ways to manage police challenge encounters.
4. Life is fatal - nobody who's been born gets out of here alive. Some threat at some time will kill you (and me) at some point, whether it's a criminal on the street, another driver on the road, or too many years of eating potato chips and drinking beer in front of the TV. Be prepared for the aftermath of that event at all times.

[WildBill]

"Contagious shooting" (some officers firing only because others did) is a mark of an agency with a drastically deficient training program. Even when shooting is justified, not every officer at a scene may be in a position to see the justification. A well trained and conscientious officer must and will hold his fire until he is both individually justified in using DPF and he believes it is necessary to do so.

I am glad that you posted this. I was going to bring this up in an earlier post, but was not aware of the term "contagious shooting." I can easily visualize this happening in a tense situation when several officers are pointing their guns at a suspect." After the first shot is fired, I can imagine the volley of shots that would follow without further consideration.

[VMI77]

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.

[baldeagle]

Excaliber, I appreciate more than you can imagine your input on these issues. You've helped to shore up my confidence in LE at a time when it was greatly shaken.

I wonder if you could speculate on what, in your opinion, would have been an appropriate way to approach the Costco situation. I believe that the decision to evacuate the store limited the options of LE, but shooting a man in the midst of a large crowd of civilians probably wasn't the wisest of choices. It also bothers me that the officers involved were fully exposed instead of behind cover. It seems like, from what little we know, some serious tactical mistakes were made, but you're much more qualified than I to speculate on that. Assume for the moment that you have the basic "facts" that we know - an armed man described as "destroying merchandise" and "possibly on drugs" or "emotionally disturbed" is headed toward the exit along with a crowd of citizens who've been asked to evacuate but don't know why and don't have a sense of danger. What would you, as a supervisor, think would be an appropriate course of action?

[Cobra Medic]

I hope the victim's dad has enough spook juice to get justice, one way or another.

[Excaliber]

Excaliber, I appreciate more than you can imagine your input on these issues. You've helped to shore up my confidence in LE at a time when it was greatly shaken.

I wonder if you could speculate on what, in your opinion, would have been an appropriate way to approach the Costco situation. I believe that the decision to evacuate the store limited the options of LE, but shooting a man in the midst of a large crowd of civilians probably wasn't the wisest of choices. It also bothers me that the officers involved were fully exposed instead of behind cover. It seems like, from what little we know, some serious tactical mistakes were made, but you're much more qualified than I to speculate on that. Assume for the moment that you have the basic "facts" that we know - an armed man described as "destroying merchandise" and "possibly on drugs" or "emotionally disturbed" is headed toward the exit along with a crowd of citizens who've been asked to evacuate but don't know why and don't have a sense of danger. What would you, as a supervisor, think would be an appropriate course of action?

If I have helped you put some of this highly emotionally charged information in better perspective, I'm glad to have been of service.

In fairness to all involved, I wasn't there and I don't have any more details on exactly what the officers were told and the physical situation they encountered than what has been publicly reported. A small change in circumstances can make a big difference.

Please see my July 13 7:22 AM post in this thread for a quick take on an approach that I would at least have considered given the circumstances as they have been reported.

[WildBill]

I hope the victim's dad has enough spook juice to get justice, one way or another.

I am not sure exactly was "spook juice" is, but I am confident that he has plently.

[C-dub]

Contagious shooting, didn't a lot of this go on in the Army during Viet Nam? Maybe that was just in the movies. If it did, I wonder how much it still happens. Doesn't your average Soldier or Marine receive much more weapons training than the average LEO? Or is this comparison apples and oranges?

My next thought might be a little out there. There's a very little part of me that hopes the deceased did do something wrong that will justify the officers. If not, I hope the officers get what they deserve, but I would also like to have a little more faith in LE.