Las Vegas Costco shooting ruled justifiable

[maestro pistolero]

"The family is not going to just let it go. No way. "

Too bad. Their relative got himself killed and now they want to make it somebody else's fault?

This is the black and white thinking that I just don't get. He didn't get himself killed without a lot of help from a few different people. As Al has pointed out, there is plenty of blame to go around. Many people had to set this stage before this scene could play out. Remove any one component, and Scott lives.

Start with the exaggerated 911 call, move on to the dispatcher's enhanced opinion and characterization of the behavior, then on to the officer's decisions on the scene prior to the shooting, and finally to the moment of the shooting which, only at that moment became unavoidable.

[johnbt]

"He didn't get himself killed without a lot of help from a few different people."

But he got himself killed, didn't he?

What he did is about like playing in traffic in the dark and then blaming and suing the drivers that run you over.

All because he made a move and reached for the gun, or his belt, or his pocket, or something other than standing very,very still and then following the instructions given by the people pointing guns at him.

Unfortunately, he made a terrible mistake and doesn't get a do-over.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Just getting into this. Lots of good points. The thing that has caught my attention the most is the drug usage. I really think that puts the Scott family's side of the case in great jeopardy. The guy was abusing narcotics and had an almost lethal amount in his bloodstream and that goes straight to his state of mind and that will be hard for the Scott family to overcome with any jury. No one should carry when impaired (in this case a long term addict). Scott was and that was the biggest error he made IMHO.

[maestro pistolero]

All because he made a move and reached for the gun, or his belt, or his pocket, or something other than standing very,very still and then following the instructions given by the people pointing guns at him.

Please read the thread with the bolded part in mind.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Start with the exaggerated 911 call, move on to the dispatcher's enhanced opinion and characterization of the behavior, then on to the officer's decisions on the scene prior to the shooting, and finally to the moment of the shooting which, only at that moment became unavoidable.

With this, I can agree. Any "blame" though, falls to a very great degree, on only Scott and then secondarily on the dispatcher. I still consider it to be a distant "second" though.

As I've said many times before, he who carries a gun also carries a greater responsibility to avoid conflict than he who does not carry a gun. Scott failed in this responsibility, severely and in multiple ways. Ultimately, Scott initiated this situation.

The responding officers must be able to trust the information being reported from the dispatcher. Second guessing these things can get the officers killed. The information presented to them may have been inaccurate, although that's still one assumption among many, but they have to believe it. It appears to me that the officers acted reasonably, based on what they "knew" from the dispatcher.

Once again, once they got to the actual "shoot, no shoot" decision, I believe it was too late. The hands had been played.

[johnbt]

"Please read the thread with the bolded part in mind."

If faced with conflicting instructions...don't move. This isn't rocket science. Just keep your hands in the air. Freeze.

If you move...do so very slowly...don't reach for your holster, your gun, your belt, your pocket, your underarm, your manbag, your fanny pack, the small of your back or any of the usual places folks keep guns and knives.



So, was he really in 3 wrecks prior to the Costco event? Too many meds? Self medicated?

Did his girlfriend really have to help him with the application at the store because he couldn't do it himself?

[johnbt]

Mr. Scott's father made and published a list of the doctors who prescribed meds for his son. One doctor protested that he had never treated or met Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott's father then said that maybe he misread his son's records. Okay, fair enough so far.

Mr. Scott's girlfriend used to work at that doctor's office and was fired this summer.

Question: I wonder how Mr. Scott got the prescription.

Question #2: I wonder why the girlfriend didn't testify?

Makes me go hmmm. Curious isn't it?

I wonder what she will have to say at the civil trial? I bet she can't avoid that one.

[therealdeal]

Just getting into this. Lots of good points. The thing that has caught my attention the most is the drug usage. I really think that puts the Scott family's side of the case in great jeopardy. The guy was abusing narcotics and had an almost lethal amount in his bloodstream and that goes straight to his state of mind and that will be hard for the Scott family to overcome with any jury. No one should carry when impaired (in this case a long term addict). Scott was and that was the biggest error he made IMHO.

Maybe I am missing something tennessee and/or you said you're just getting in this+maybe read something somewhere else?? correct me if I am wrong, but how do you know this guy is a long time drug addict?? besides that the drug use is purely speculative and judgements like that lead to mistakes that are crucial. its all speculative. we have no idea what led up to his impairment that day. this is necessary to make a determination. I apologize if I missed something, so let me know someone if I did. the drug usage is huge; you are right about that, but more info is needed.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by therealdeal

I apologize if I missed something, so let me know someone if I did. the drug usage is huge; you are right about that, but more info is needed.

Just read the medical examiner's report. No speculation. The fact that the morphine levels were so high indicated a tolerance associated with long term addiction.

[therealdeal]

or maybe it was the first time it was in his system and was basically an overdose. the odds are angst him, but we do not know how it got in his system if thats the case. the guy was completely 'gone' and thats whats so sad. his mom knows the next day if he lived he would've been normal(as in in a more, regular state of mind). its obvious he was just totally plastered beyond belief because he couldnt function the holster, commands, etc. thats no excuse but we still dont have definitive facts about what led up to that level of impairment on this particular day. this same thing could happen to a 16yr old drunk for the 1st time who cant stand up or speak because they're so intoxicated. I dont want to seem like I am defending the drugs, I am not. its obvious that his level of impairment was a huge factor so thats why its such an important issue. that doesnt change the fact of what the officers have to do while on duty day in and day out. none of those conditions are changed

[therealdeal]

send me the med report if possible

[Double Naught Spy]

According to his family, he was taking some 32 different medications.
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/131942...ott-was-taking

Scott had multiple narcotic prescriptions from multiple doctors and quite strangely, his girlfriend had a lot of the very same prescriptions.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010...es-several-do/

Maybe no so surprising, but as a guy on so many medications, he had a lot of automotive accidents, three thusfar in 2010.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

The responding officers must be able to trust the information being reported from the dispatcher. Second guessing these things can get the officers killed. The information presented to them may have been inaccurate, although that's still one assumption among many, but they have to believe it. It appears to me that the officers acted reasonably, based on what they "knew" from the dispatcher.

While I agree that responding officers should be able to trust the information conveyed by the dispatcher ... that cuts both ways. The officers SHOULD be able to trust the information they receive from the dispatchers. Which means that dispatchers should not lie, should not exaggerate, should not omit possibly important information, and ... perhaps most importantly, should take enough time with the original caller to verify whether or not a crime is actually being committed.

I do not accept that Erik Scott "got himself killed." Having read every piece of information I could find on this incident, I am of the opinion that the knucklehead who called 9-1-1 ultimately bears responsibility for getting Scott killed, and at the very least he/she should be prosecuted for making a false report.If the dispatcher juiced it up still more -- try 'em both. It wasn't a video game ... that was a real, live human being whose life they terminated by their actions.

[therealdeal]

thanx double and TN- yeah those bases have been covered so his drug use definately wasnt an accident

[JohnKSa]

Which means that dispatchers should not lie, should not exaggerate, should not omit possibly important information, and ... perhaps most importantly, should take enough time with the original caller to verify whether or not a crime is actually being committed.

The 911 recordings have been released. I listened to them in their entirety. In my opinion, the dispatcher spent a considerable amount of time on the phone with the original caller and received a thorough and accurate picture of what happened in the store prior to the arrival of the police. One could argue, perhaps, that the caller exaggerated (although the facts don't seem to support such an assertion), but the dispatcher and the caller were certainly on the same page by the time the police arrived.

The caller repeatedly asserted that Scott was agitated, acting erratically and seemed to be drunk or otherwise chemically impaired.

You know that nobody pulls the holster and all.

Not intentionally, assuming the intent is to use the gun; however it is not at all unheard of for someone to draw and have the holster come out on the gun unintentionally.

Frankly I don't think Scott drew the gun with the intent to use it, but in my opinion, even if he intentionally pulled the gun out with the holster on it, that would provide reasonable justification for the use of deadly force given the context. If a person you are holding at gun point, a person acting erratically and who is known to be armed, pulls out a gun, maybe you wait to see if it has a holster still stuck on it, maybe you don't. I'm not sure I would wait.

[WeedWacker]

although the facts don't seem to support such an assertion

you will recall that the caller seemed to backpedal in his description from a borderline deranged man to someone who is just hyperactive. I work with a guy who has a hyperactive disorder. It can seem disconcerting if you aren't used to it as he's kind of jittery and twitchy.

Also, as far as I know, Erik was not asked verbatim to leave the premises. He was merely informed that a policy existed that firearms were not to be allowed on the premises. He was not notified as to whether or not the policy applied only to employees or the both employee and customer alike. This leads to the statement made by the caller that he was informed that guns weren't allowed in the store and then made the jump to "yes, he was asked to leave" when there is no physical evidence of the sort as it was all hearsay. The call was based on inflammatory information and the impression that he was unstable was given to the officers responding to the call.

[JohnKSa]

you will recall that the caller seemed to backpedal in his description from a borderline deranged man to someone who is just hyperactive.

I recall the caller stating more than once that Scott was having trouble walking and was acting erratically. He may have later used the term hyperactive as well at some point in the conversation, but I don't recall anything that could be construed as "backpedaling" from his repeated assertion that Scott was acting erratically.

Also, as far as I know, Erik was not asked verbatim to leave the premises.

The police didn't shoot him for trespassing, they shot him because according to the police and the witnesses he pulled out his gun when confronted.

The police didn't come to the store because of a trespass call, they came to the store in response to store security calling about a man with a gun acting erratically.

I believe you are probably right about them not asking him directly to leave. They were, in fact, evacuating the store at the time that Scott finally decided to leave which indicates that they probably figured he was going to stay and that it would be better to get the customers out instead. But, as pointed out above, since neither the call nor the shooting were over trespassing, I don't think whether or not he was asked to leave is particularly relevant.

The call was based on inflammatory information and the impression that he was unstable was given to the officers responding to the call.

The call was based on the direct observations of the caller who was watching Scott during most of the phone conversation. The impression of the caller, based on what he saw, was definitely that Scott was unstable. So if the information was inflammatory, it was because the caller, based on his direct observations of Scott's actions felt they were inflammatory. And if the caller gave the impression that Scott was unstable (and I believe he did give that impression) it was because the caller felt that Scott's actions were unstable.

It can seem disconcerting if you aren't used to it as he's kind of jittery and twitchy.

I don't believe that anyone could, with a straight face, make the claim that it is reasonable to equate "jittery and twitchy" with ripping open unpurchased packages in a store, having difficulty walking, claiming to be a Green Beret, being unable to fill out a simple form, and pulling out a gun when confronted by police officers.

[Conn. Trooper]

The dispatcher also might have used the term "ED" to mean emotionally disturbed, not excited delerium. I know when I worked in NY we used EDP to mean emotionally disturbed person.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by WeedWacker

Also, as far as I know, Erik was not asked verbatim to leave the premises.

I think if you are told "guns aren't allowed here" and you are carrying one and it is private property, then you have been told to leave. Or at the least to get rid of the gun if you stay. Scott just choose to ignore it.

Again, you have a drug addict who is abusing narcotics and carrying. Once that came out it pretty much sinks any case Scott's family has IMO.

[johnbt]

"The dispatcher also might have used the term "ED" to mean emotionally disturbed, not excited delerium."

I have worked with individuals with disabilities since I finished grad school in 1974. I have never heard, or read, the term 'excited delirium.'

Must be a police term, it's certainly not a formal psychiatric term and I don't see it in my copy of the DSM-IV.

Okay, if you believe wikipedia, it's a term used sometimes by medical examiners when somebody dies in police custody while acting out, etc.

[Double Naught Spy]

Also, as far as I know, Erik was not asked verbatim to leave the premises.

I think if you are told "guns aren't allowed here" and you are carrying one and it is private property, then you have been told to leave. Or at the least to get rid of the gun if you stay. Scott just choose to ignore it.

Again, you have a drug addict who is abusing narcotics and carrying. Once that came out it pretty much sinks any case Scott's family has IMO.

Right. The person does not have to leave, but the gun does. He does not have to be asked to remove the gun as he was told he could not have it in the store.

He was told Costco doesn't allow guns and instead of removing the gun from the premises upon being notified guns were not allowed, he opted to argue why he gets to have a gun on their property (permit, Constitution, Green Beret, reported told to the clerk). At that point, he was trespassing.

He was merely informed that a policy existed that firearms were not to be allowed on the premises. He was not notified as to whether or not the policy applied only to employees or the both employee and customer alike. This leads to the statement made by the caller that he was informed that guns weren't allowed in the store and then made the jump to "yes, he was asked to leave" when there is no physical evidence of the sort as it was all hearsay. The call was based on inflammatory information and the impression that he was unstable was given to the officers responding to the call.

Hearsay based on inflammatory information? Not exactly. Scott later told his girlfriend while evacuating the store that if they (Costco employees) had a problem with his gun (which is independent verification that he had been told he could not have a gun in the store) that they could see the ATF. As a Nevada permit holder (for several guns, actually), Scott's justifications for being able to carry are bizarre. He would have known that his permit does not allow him to carry where guns are not allowed and that the Constitution, his military history, and the ATF have nothing to do with his Nevada permits and are not what makes the permit valid.

It gets better...Add to that he wasn't just carrying the one gun, but two. He had a Kimber .45 which is the one drawn on the officers. He also had a Ruger LCP. He only had the permit for the Kimber. He did not have a permit for the LCP. Guns that can be carried are stipulated on Nevada permits. He had a permit for a Kel Tec .380 and for his Kimber, but nothing for the Ruger LCP.