CHL holder killed by police in Las Vegas at a Costco

[Fangs]

All of this just reiterates the need to freeze when given multiple, varying commands until the officers figure out what they really want you to do.

Sounds to me like it comes down to the officer being on a hair trigger because he was scared.

The whole thing is still just as disheartening and disgusting to me as when it first happened, if not worse.

[baldeagle]

A witness to the shooting just testified that the gun that Erik had was in a zippered bag and "disappeared" (his words) right after the shooting. He said that he assumed that the police had picked it up. This guy is in his 70's, has had a CCW in the past and seems to know guns and holsters quite well. He even explained that the Uncle Mike's holster was a left-handed OWB holster but could be worn as an IWB holster on the right. However, he pointed out that if it was worn that way, there's no way Erik could have gotten to the trigger.

The gun that has been shown repeatedly as an exhibit was in an Uncle Mikes holster with a Kimber 1911 in it. That's the precise gun and holster that Officer Mosher described in his testimony. But this witness is adamant (and he seems to know guns and holsters quite well) that Eric had a zippered bag that was "blue", and that it disappeared right after the shooting. He even stated, when looking at the exhibit, "That is not the gun that Mr. Scott had".

It sounds like Mosher placed his throw away gun at the scene to cover up what he'd done when he realized that Erik could not have been drawing to shoot. This is stunning testimony. It makes Mosher look really bad.

[chartreuse]

It sounds like Mosher placed his throw away gun at the scene to cover up what he'd done when he realized that Erik could not have been drawing to shoot. This is stunning testimony. It makes Mosher look really bad.

My word! Evidence of an officer using a throw away piece to create false evidence would be very significant. I say I'm a realist, though folks call me cynical, but I can't help hoping that, just this once, the truth might prevail.

[92f-fan]

I'm still not believing that the DVR drive was unrecoverable
Ive sent off dozens of dead drives for recovery over the years and basically for about $2000 companies like Ontrack can get data off of anything ... Maybe not all the data but data.. Ive NEVER seen them fail to recover data.
And the Govt has better resources than that

When someone came to me with a dead drive I always said - yep we can get the data - all that matters is how important it is to you ..

[HighHandicap]

I'm still not believing that the DVR drive was unrecoverable
Ive sent off dozens of dead drives for recovery over the years and basically for about $2000 companies like Ontrack can get data off of anything ... Maybe not all the data but data.. Ive NEVER seen them fail to recover data.
And the Govt has better resources than that

When someone came to me with a dead drive I always said - yep we can get the data - all that matters is how important it is to you ..

That assumes the drive was working at the time of the shooting and then went bad later. In that case I agree that the data would almost certainly be recoverable. If the drive did fail two days before the shooting, as they claim, then the cameras feeds wouldn't have been recorded at all and there wouldn't be anything to recover. It may be the truth, but I have a hard time believing the hard drive linked to the one set of cameras that would show what happened just "happened" to fail 2 days before the event.

[baldeagle]

Based on what I've seen so far, I have come to two conclusions. Erik made a fatal mistake when he decided to surrender his weapon to the officers. He should have obeyed their commands instead and gotten down on the ground. Erik made that mistake because his mental faculties were impaired by the prescription narcotics he was taking to ease his pain.

I have lots of questions about the behavior of the other officers, but they haven't testified yet and the entire focus of the testimony so far has been on Officer Mosher's actions.

I'm convinced that Officer Mosher is a liar. I believe he fired the instant he saw Erik reach for his holster, because he was scared to death of Erik's possible abilities with a weapon due to the Costco's employee's claim that Erik said he was a Green Beret. Erik was never a Green Beret, and I doubt he told the Costco employees that. I believe the other officers fired because Officer Mosher fired. But there is no question that Mosher killed Erik. He shot him directly through the heart from a distance of about three feet.

There is so much conflict in the testimony of witnesses to the shooting that it's hard to know what really happened. However, I think the following facts are fairly firmly established. Erik was not following the commands of the officers because he was affected by the narcotics. Erik pulled his shirt up to show his weapon to the officers and then removed the holstered weapon from his pants to surrender it. Whether or not he actually pointed it at the officers is uncertain. Some witnesses have claimed that he did. Others have claimed that he never did. But that action clearly cost him his life.

The rest is rather foggy. I'm not convinced the Costco employees are telling the truth. Their testimony regarding Erik's behavior inside the store directly conflicts with that of eyewitnesses who have testified to the same events. For example, the Costco employees describe Erik as "extremely agitated" and "very loud", yet two eyewitnesses said he appeared irritated by what the Costco employees were telling him. No witness other than Costco employees have claimed that Erik was "very loud". In fact the Costco employees can't even point to a single person in the store who complained about Erik.

The inquest will resume tomorrow at 8AM Las Vegas time (10AM here), and I will be watching.

I think it's unfortunate that no one who loved Erik ever suggested to him that the powerful narcotics he was taking were affecting his lucidity. If one person who loved him had discussed the issue with him, perhaps it would have affected his decision to carry a weapon, knowing that he was impaired. In the end, this is a very sad story that could have turned out quite differently if Erik had gotten and accepted sound advice from friends or loved ones.

I won't make my final decision until the inquest is completely over, but at this point I'm leaning toward a verdict of excusable. I don't think the shooting was justifiable, because the officers knew that Erik was impaired and that he was carrying. Instead of waiting in ambush for him, they should have tackled him to the ground as soon as they saw him. Instead of being dead, he would have been in custody. When he walked out of the store, he was within arm's reach of three officers, with his back toward them. Instead of yelling commands to him, which caused him to turn and face them, they could have easily swarmed and overwhelmed him and taken him to the ground.

[Keith B]

As I believe I posted in one of these 30-some-odd pages, it was basically an 'error chain' that was built. In other words, there were multiple issues or 'errors' that were made to forge the chain that eventually cost Erik his life. From what I can see, those events you listed above are the ones that were the links: the drugs and potentially agitated (maybe enhanced by the drugs), a scared security guard who embellished his call to 911, cops responding to a call of a man with a gun (not a CHL holder who is agitated at the store employees) and then Erik's failure to follow or react promptly to the rapid commands the responding LEO's issued. Had any one of the items not been there, then the chain would have been broken and he probably would still be here with us today.

[baldeagle]

I just posted this in the Nevada Shooters forum.

This is directly based on the inquest testimony, which I have been following closely from the beginning.

Three officers formed an arc at the exit of Costco. As Erik exited the store, he walked directly past the officers, within a few feet of them. The cops "knew" (from the dispatches) that Erik was 1) impaired, perhaps by drugs and 2) legally carrying a weapon and 3) had not drawn or used the gun on anyone. As Erik walked past them, with his back to them, they could have easily tackled him and taken him to the ground before he knew what hit him, cuff him, take him into custody and sort it all out later.

Instead, they deliberately chose to draw their weapons and prepare to use them well before Erik appeared at the exit. Then, as Erik passed them, they began yelling commands at him, knowing that he was impaired and unnecessarily escalated the situation until it resulted in Erik's death.

Was Erik wrong to ignore the officers' commands? Obviously yes. But he was impaired, and they knew that. Was Erik wrong to remove his holstered weapon in a misguided attempt to surrender it. Absolutely! That's what cost him his life. But it never would have gotten to that point if the officers had had the simple decency to consider that a legally armed citizen who was apparently impaired would be easily overcome by three well-trained officers.

I hold Officer Mosher directly responsible for Erik's death. He was in charge. He was the first to fire. He shot Erik from three feet away directly in the heart, killing him. He should have to pay for his lack of compassion, his lack of professionalism and his decision to initiate a potential deadly force incident rather than choose a way to de-escalate it. He even stated under oath that his training has taught him to try to de-escalate a situation with a person who is impaired by narcotics or alcohol. Yet in this situation he chose to do exactly the opposite.

So I hope Mosher is sued, and loses a fortune. I hope he loses his job and can never serve as a law enforcement officer in any capacity ever again. I hope the prosecutors come to their senses and charge him with manslaughter.

He is a stain on the law enforcement community, most of whom are honorable decent persons trying to do a very difficult and dangerous job because they love to serve. The Officer Moshers of the world hurt every other officer that serves.

[blue]

What if....
(As it looks now!)

If the police had NOT showed up for another 1/2 hr. :

---- Erik would have got in a vehicle and left, WITHOUT ANY crime being commited.----

The police are directly responsible for de-escalating or escalating during any contact.

-----------------------------
Many Senior Citizens are - 1) heavy meds, 2) slow reactions, 3) easily confused. 4) grumpy.

-Are they all ligit targets for the police in LV?-
--------

(Where are the videos of INSIDE the store?)

[baldeagle]

What if....
(As it looks now!)

If the police had NOT showed up for another 1/2 hr. :

---- Erik would have got in a vehicle and left, WITHOUT ANY crime being commited.----

The police are directly responsible for de-escalating or escalating during any contact.

-----------------------------
Many Senior Citizens are - 1) heavy meds, 2) slow reactions, 3) easily confused. 4) grumpy.

-Are they all ligit targets for the police in LV?-
--------

(Where are the videos of INSIDE the store?)

According to Costco employee testimony, they have three DVRs. One records all the cameras at the gas pumps. One records all the cameras viewing the parking lot. One records everything inside the store and its entrance and exit. That third DVR had malfunctioned two days previous, and they didn't bother to fix it until the day after the shooting because they "don't depend on video" for loss prevention. So, conveniently, there is no video of what occurred either inside the store or at its entrance leaving the jury to decide who to believe; the Costco employees or the customers who witnessed the incident.

[blue]

Thank you for the info on DVR's.
incredible just incredible.



Regards,
Blue

[Beiruty]

When the girlfriend will testify? she was there all the time. She should witnessed all the events.

[baldeagle]

When the girlfriend will testify? she was there all the time. She should witnessed all the events.

She will not be testifying. This is apparently either her choice or hers and the Scotts, on the advice of their attorney. Her interview with the police was played for the jury today, along with a transcript to make it easier to understand what she was saying. She stated that she thought that Officer Mosher was "extremely aggressive".

Edited to add this link to the girlfriend's interview with the police, as presented at the inquest.