CHL holder killed by police in Las Vegas at a Costco

[OldSchool]

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.

Well said by both. In brief, my #1 job is primarily dedicated to avoiding tragic scenarios, by isolating and breaking "failure chains." It takes a clear head and experience to recognize a failure chain in the making.

ETA: Not that I'm claiming to ever have a "clear head."

[OldSchool]

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).

[Beiruty]

as of now:
\
How Would You Rule In The Erik Scott Coroner's Inquest?
Choice Votes Percentage of 3,127 Votes
Justified 1,484
47%
Excusable 204
7%
Criminal 1,439
46%
Thank you for participating in our survey!
close window

[PeteCamp]

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.

[OldSchool]

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.

Pete, I know that this isn't what you're saying, but I just want to clarify my thought:
If the rule of law, as displayed in the courtroom at all levels, is not respected as being the final arbitration of rules in the land, then we have a fundamental problem with society, and may God help us all. The minimizing of errors in the courtroom cannot be performed in the form of replacing the courtroom decision with that of unrestrained opinion.

Also, I disagree with the idea that anyone outside the jury box are equivalent to the jury in a particular trial. By design, a juror is not to be privy to all "facts" and speculation surrounding a case. Mob rule occurs when we feel that we are better equipped than the judge and jury to dispense justice. At that point, we are no longer a functioning, nor just, society, because we have "taken the law into our own hands."

As to television: Remember that you are never seeing an unbiased nor undistorted "fact." Television, like any other kind of remote communication, is a produced entity that reflects the point of view of the device, at best (and a commentary, at worst). Indeed, anything "seen" through a camera or microphone is, by definition, distorted from the 1st person point of view. I spent many, many years in broadcasting, always trying to minimize the distortion, but finding it always there to some degree.

Just my opinion, of course.

[baldeagle]

Maybe there is a good reason the Scott family is being coy. According to a commenter in this Confederate Yankee post, Erik's gun was removed from his waistband by paramedics while they were treating him. This would mean that Scott never even withdrew his holster, unless someone put it back in his waistband after he was down.

Any witness who states they saw a gun in Scott's hands are somewhat less than reliable, and their accounts should be thoroughly discounted in your analyses.

In the ambulance driver's report of the incident, written while they were driving back - and this report may not yet be generally available - the paramedics write that THEY REMOVED SCOTT'S GUN FROM HIS WAISTBAND HOLSTER and placed it on the ground.

This little FACT is somewhat at variance with a whole lot of what was said, and what some of the less acute observers who are saying they saw a gun in Scott's hands.

Also: Scott and Sam' walked by officers who were AT THE ENTRANCE when they were walking out, and THOSE police didn't see anything unusual (i.e., threatening) in Scott's attitude. It was ONLY after they'd passed by THOSE officers that the Costco part-time employee pointed out Scott and Sam' to the three officers (she was standing beside) who were involved in the shoot.

[Keith B]

Maybe there is a good reason the Scott family is being coy. According to a commenter in this Confederate Yankee post, Erik's gun was removed from his waistband by paramedics while they were treating him. This would mean that Scott never even withdrew his holster, unless someone put it back in his waistband after he was down.

Any witness who states they saw a gun in Scott's hands are somewhat less than reliable, and their accounts should be thoroughly discounted in your analyses.

In the ambulance driver's report of the incident, written while they were driving back - and this report may not yet be generally available - the paramedics write that THEY REMOVED SCOTT'S GUN FROM HIS WAISTBAND HOLSTER and placed it on the ground.

This little FACT is somewhat at variance with a whole lot of what was said, and what some of the less acute observers who are saying they saw a gun in Scott's hands.

Also: Scott and Sam' walked by officers who were AT THE ENTRANCE when they were walking out, and THOSE police didn't see anything unusual (i.e., threatening) in Scott's attitude. It was ONLY after they'd passed by THOSE officers that the Costco part-time employee pointed out Scott and Sam' to the three officers (she was standing beside) who were involved in the shoot.

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

[baldeagle]

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.

[OldSchool]

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.

I didn't remember that. That would be interesting. Was it in one of the stories linked to this thread?

[baldeagle]

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.

I didn't remember that. That would be interesting. Was it in one of the stories linked to this thread?

In the news stories shortly after the shooting, it was reported that the paramedics found a second weapon on Erik's body as they were transporting him. I haven't heard any testimony about that second weapon, but I haven't been able to listen to every second of the testimony either.

[puma guy]

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.

I didn't remember that. That would be interesting. Was it in one of the stories linked to this thread?

There was some information early on that two weapons were involved. If you listen/read Shai Lierley's running dialog with the 911 dispatcher he stated the gun was in the rear but it was very vague, He stated later Erik was checking it on the right side. I don't think he ever saw the gun himself. Another employee saw it. The info about two weapons could have come from someone privy to the 911 call or maybe there was information dispatched about the original in the rear and then adjusting something on the right. Police scanners would have picked up any dispatched information. I can imagine myself fidgeting and checking to see if my shirt was down if I'd been outed.

[Beiruty]

Any testimony from the EMTs?

[skub]

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.

Pete, I know that this isn't what you're saying, but I just want to clarify my thought:
If the rule of law, as displayed in the courtroom at all levels, is not respected as being the final arbitration of rules in the land, then we have a fundamental problem with society, and may God help us all. The minimizing of errors in the courtroom cannot be performed in the form of replacing the courtroom decision with that of unrestrained opinion.

Also, I disagree with the idea that anyone outside the jury box are equivalent to the jury in a particular trial. By design, a juror is not to be privy to all "facts" and speculation surrounding a case. Mob rule occurs when we feel that we are better equipped than the judge and jury to dispense justice. At that point, we are no longer a functioning, nor just, society, because we have "taken the law into our own hands."

As to television: Remember that you are never seeing an unbiased nor undistorted "fact." Television, like any other kind of remote communication, is a produced entity that reflects the point of view of the device, at best (and a commentary, at worst). Indeed, anything "seen" through a camera or microphone is, by definition, distorted from the 1st person point of view. I spent many, many years in broadcasting, always trying to minimize the distortion, but finding it always there to some degree.

Just my opinion, of course.

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.

[OldSchool]

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.

You make a good point, and I quite agree -- this is an inquest, not a trial. I think it was the "criminal" option that got to me.

[HighHandicap]

Evidently Costco's policy regarding the carrying of firearms is company wide. I'm not sure how that applies in Texas, where a 30:06 sign is required to forbid carrying.

We all should know the answer to this. That can be their policy, but without a 30.06 (or a person in charge asking you to leave your weapon outside) it doesn't matter.