Las Vegas Costco shooting ruled justifiable - Page 2

Brian Pfleuger · October 1, 2010, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Whatever drugs he may or may not have on board, it is the behavior that should dictate the response.

And by implying that his behavior was NOT what dictated the officers response, we are left with no conclusion except that that INTENTIONALLY killed the man with murderous intent. There is no other conclusion.

The shooting was either based on his actions or the officers simply decided to kill the man for no reason.

Since there is no indication whatsoever that these officers would want to kill someone for no reason, we are left with the conclusion that they felt, in that brief millisecond time frame, that their lives were in danger and they had to act.

Were they correct in that belief? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is, they were FORCED into that situation. The deceased CHOSE that situation. The deceased has already paid the ultimate price for a series of stupid decisions. There is no reason that the officers, acting on good faith, should have to pay so severe a price.

Wildalaska · October 1, 2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

think if you are on meds for depression and or other psych problems you should not have a gun period. These people are prone to taking a cocktail of meds and irrational behavior just a bad combo.

THESE PEOPLE? What, are you inferring that folks who suffer from mental illness are in some fashion inferior, or not people?

Let me tell ya something sport, depression and other mental illnesses are ILLNESSES, treatable ILLNESSES. While I agree a line has to be drawn in terms of metal illnesses that render the sufferer INCOMPETENT to own a gun, or drive a car or even own a kitchen knife, to make a bald statement like you just made is an insult to the folks who suffer from mental illness, the family members who support them, and the docs that treat them.

WildihaveredactedtherestbasedonthethinktwicepostonceruleAlaska ™©2002-2010

maestro pistolero · October 1, 2010, 04:11 PM

Quote:

And by implying that his behavior was NOT what dictated the officers response, we are left with no conclusion except that that INTENTIONALLY killed the man with murderous intent. There is no other conclusion.

Oh, please. We don't have to assign murderous intent, or even ill-will to these officers when mere incompetence will do.

They didn't intend to murder anyone, but by their inept, and inappropriate handling of the situation, they backed themselves into the moment they actually did have to fire.

IF multiple and conflicting commands hadn't been issued, and a single clear command to get on the ground, HAD BEEN issued, this thread wouldn't exist, and Scott would be alive.

IF they had observed the man's behavior for even a minute, IF they had gotten their information correct, even IF they had tackled and dog-piled him (uncalled-for, but still better than creating a live fire scene in a crowd) IF they had calmly approached the man and ask him to walk with them (they had all the backup and cover they needed for this) IF, IF, IF . . .

They did NONE of these things.

We don't tolerate cop-bashing on this forum. You'll notice I am only talking about THESE officer in THIS situation. But we have a lot of patience for those who defend the officers at all costs, regardless of the facts of the situation. If no-one is willing to call a spade a spade, then we are tacitly condoning the errors, and guaranteeing that they will be repeated.

Nevada is an open carry state and a shall-issue state. This could have happened to almost anyone here. Except those of us who take from this the lesson to disobey any command from a police officer to touch your weapon for any reason, even to "DROP" or surrender it.

I notice that no-one, so far, is willing to touch the truth and logic of my argument. Only blindly stating the officers were in fear of their life. No doubt they were. But that was a stage THEY set, a scene about which they had all kinds of choices about how to play it out. They chose wrong.

Alaska444 · October 1, 2010, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Oh, please. We don't have to assign murderous intent, or even ill-will to these officers when mere incompetence will do.

They didn't intend to murder anyone, but by their inept, and inappropriate handling of the situation, they backed themselves into the moment they actually did have to fire.

IF multiple and conflicting commands hadn't been issued, and a single clear command to get on the ground, HAD BEEN issued, this thread wouldn't exist, and Scott would be alive.

IF they had observed the man's behavior for even a minute, IF they had gotten their information correct, even IF they had tackled and dog-piled him (uncalled-for, but still better than creating a live fire scene in a crowd) IF they had calmly approached the man and ask him to walk with them (they had all the backup and cover they needed for this) IF, IF, IF . . .

They did NONE of these things.

We don't tolerate cop-bashing on this forum. You'll notice I am only talking about THESE officer in THIS situation. But we have a lot of patience for those who defend the officers at all costs, regardless of the facts of the situation. If no-one is willing to call a spade a spade, then we are tacitly condoning the errors, and guaranteeing that they will be repeated.

Nevada is an open carry state and a shall-issue state. This could have happened to almost anyone here. Except those of us who take from this the lesson to disobey any command from a police officer to touch your weapon for any reason, even to "DROP" or surrender it.

I notice that no-one, so far, is willing to touch the truth and logic of my argument. Only blindly stating the officers were in fear of their life. No doubt they were. But that was a stage THEY set, a scene about which they had all kinds of choices about how to play it out. They chose wrong.

From the information that is available, which often is inaccurate from news accounts alone, if indeed the victim had all of the different times to avoid this conflict, in my opinion, it appears that he brought it upon himself.

If asked to leave by a property owner: LEAVE. If you are taking xanax and morphine, DON'T CARRY a gun. If confronted by police, DON'T touch your gun and especially don't point it a police officer.

If someone is pointing a gun at me, I will shoot.

The real issue of discussion is whether the reports are accurate or not. Unfortunately, that becomes difficult to judge from a distance. But if the reports are accurate, I believe he brought this upon himself. I suspect that if there is any verdict in favor of the victim in the civil case, it will most likely be offset by the actions of the victim. Some cases are won, but the monetary damages are only $1.00.

It will be interesting to see if we hear anything on this case in the next few years, usually it takes quite a bit of time for the civil case to work it's way through the system. Tragic event no matter how you look at it.

oldcspsarge · October 2, 2010, 08:09 PM

It is a sad situation that the CCW holder placed in motion...period.

IF you are a CCW or current/retired LEO...it doesn't matter !

You MUST listen to the uniformed Officers AND DO EXACTLY as they say !

Had he done that, he would have been proned out, handcuffed....ID'd and probably released with a trespassing ticket.

He chose poorly and paid the ultimate price.

IF you are going to drink and/or use prescription drugs....leave the guns at home !

IF you think you are going to tell the Uniform Cops anything...you are wrong !

You DO NOT EVER reach for your firearm to "Surrender it" or you can count on being SHOT !

You can run your mouth about civil court and burden of proof until the cows come home.....but you will NEVER bring that poor foolish man back to life !

Everybody gets to second guess and monday morning quarterback what the cops decisions that were made in a matter of seconds....from the brass to the victims wife...but you cannot reverse what happened.

The PD responded to a man with a gun call. Until he is controlled, restrained and then disarmed.....the Cops have the DUTY to do exactly as trained and protect themselves. The CCW holder SHOULD have followed the Officers instructions....and he would be alive.

I hope this sad situation opens the eyes of those who CCW....Listen and Live !

CCW permits are great....as is the responsibility. To the Cops responding, you are an ARMED CRIMINAL until proven otherwise. Follow their instructions and everything will be resolved according to the law. Go for the gun.....
YOU WILL DIE...real simple .

Identifying yourself as a CCW holder MAY lower the stress level BUT just go along with the Cops...it could be SWAT or Barney Fife...but go along with their instructions and LIVE to tell about it !

**Aguila Blanca** · October 2, 2010, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldcspsarge

CCW permits are great....as is the responsibility. To the Cops responding, you are an ARMED CRIMINAL until proven otherwise. Follow their instructions and everything will be resolved according to the law. Go for the gun.....
YOU WILL DIE...real simple .

Really?

Not even a "possible" armed criminal? What ever happened to that basic legal precept of "innocent until proven guilty"? What about due process? What about "probable cause"?

Wildalaska · October 2, 2010, 10:57 PM

Quote:

You MUST listen to the uniformed Officers AND DO EXACTLY as they say !

Exactly.

Quote:

What ever happened to that basic legal precept of "innocent until proven guilty"? What about due process? What about "probable cause"?

The street is not a courtroom.

maestro pistolero · October 3, 2010, 12:42 AM

Quote:

You MUST listen to the uniformed Officers AND DO EXACTLY as they say !

Even if those simultaneous commands from multiple officers conflict with each other, make no sense, or are in fact impossible to comply with. These officers share none of the blame. Got it.

Quote:

If asked to leave by a property owner: LEAVE.

AGAIN. He wasn't ask to leave.

Wildalaska · October 3, 2010, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Even if those simultaneous commands from multiple officers conflict with each other, make no sense, or are in fact impossible to comply with. These officers share none of the blame. Got it.

You were there? Wow!

Tamara · October 3, 2010, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildalaska

You were there?

No, but he can read transcripts, I'm sure, just as I can.

Have you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 911 Transcript

14:16 (Unidentified Officer’s Voice(s) in Background): “Put your hands where I see them now, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground...”

"You want I should freeze or get down on the ground? Mean to say, if'n I freeze, I can't rightly drop. And if'n I drop, I'm a-gonna be in motion."

(And really, the mall ninja... sorry, "Loss Prevention Technician" informing the 911 dispatcher that he was in "full observation" of the suspect was just too twee.)

Yeah, Scott could have aborted this whole thing by taking his business elsewhere, or just done the right thing in the first place by not been out & about and heeled while on opiates, but none of that excuses the rest of the goat rope and trainwreck that Costco's mall ninja and Quickdraw Mosher made of the affair.

WeedWacker · October 3, 2010, 05:24 AM

Cna we tone down the sarcasm guys? It's leaking out of the screen and onto my keyboard and may ruin it.

Quote:

Even if those simultaneous commands from multiple officers conflict with each other, make no sense, or are in fact impossible to comply with. These officers share none of the blame. Got it.

You were there? Wow!

While the sarcasm was inflammatory I believe the statement is not entirely inaccurate. From the sounds on the 911 call and from what the eyewitness statements and media have reported (if it is 100% accurate) there was little time for compliance from first instruction to first shot.

Allegation from the girlfriend: he was disarming. If you ask me that's a stupid thing to do in front of escalated armed individuals, but it may have been a logical conclusion to the individual

Allegation from the store employees: man was short tempered, seemed unstable both mentally and physically. Because of the cocktail used to curtail his pain I can see how he would have loss in motor control leading them to believe he was "on something," which he was. The part they jumped to conclusions about was that without any sort of expert opinion other than how they perceived his actions in conjunction with the sensitivity of the general public of certain locals to firearms leads me to conclude that the initial impression was an overreaction on their part correlated by the 911 dispatch call seemed as though security didn't have all the information or had been fed only part of the story as often happens when told from person to person.

Allegation from LEOs: man drew gun, pointed at officers, they responded by firing to protect themselves and the citizens behind them. Not much to pick apart, what you hear is what you get. Some eyewitnesses say that they didn't see a gun, one said he saw "sunglasses and a pen" on the ground, some said there was a gun, most were, IMHO, unreliable as they only saw what happened after the shots were fired. So we must take the officers word for it basically.

Allegation GF kind of correlates with the LEO version in that he was disarming and had gun+holster in his hand. In high stress environments your memory gets kinda funky. Example: a man was held up at an ATM and the robber runs off with his cash. He reported to police it was a stainless/chromed "Luger" pistol that the thief used, but the security camera showed it was a black "Luger" (looked like a Luger, might have been a Ruger Mk1). Your brain can insert things that aren't true. The little information that was passed on to police from the store probably exacerbated the situation as it seemed an unstable man with a concealed firearm was rampaging through CostCo. Some of his decisions (if the facts were portrayed correctly) did not make sense to me personally, like ripping open unopened packages of bottles to see if they would fit in a cooler. I'm not sure if that's how it went down or if he was going to buy the bottles anyway and wanted to see how many would fit in the cooler instead of randomly grabbing some unopened merchandise and ripping it apart.

I think mistakes were made on all sides: man takes his prescription narcotics and makes the decision to CC that day (something I wouldn't do anyway), Costco employees not making clear what the expectations were (merely telling a man that the company doesn't like firearms on the premises is not an order to vacate said premises), LEO showing up assuming the man had committed some crime (otherwise dispatch wouldn't have sent them) and placing themselves at odds with the suspect.

Wildalaska · October 3, 2010, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Have you?

Yeah. I have.

Now on the other hand no one here sat through the testimony and heard the witnesses, observed their demeanor, and made an evaluation of their credibility. That sort of makes this thread a morass of speculation based on each posters personal weltanshauung, and the only folks qualified to judge sat o the coroners jury and made their decision.

Of course in this litigious society, a civil jury will eventuallyhear it. All these folks do is want to sue, aided by their bloodsucking ambulance chasing shysters.

Wait hang on, they arent bloodsucking ambulance chasers this time, they are champions of liberty defending the oppressed open carrier.

Hows that for sarcasm.

WildsonowletsboycottcoscoAlaska ™©2002-2010

Tamara · October 3, 2010, 10:08 AM

Now who's reading stuff into what was said?

I called it a "goat rope" and a "train wreck" and it most certainly was. Do you see what happened as a preferred outcome for any of the participants?

jmortimer · October 3, 2010, 10:22 AM

Wid Alaska - You don't have to witness something to have an opinion. Your "logic" is bizzare. I don't feel the need to travel to Korea to witness the rampant starvation widely reported and seen on smuggled video tapes to believe that living there is hell on earth for the average citizen. Here we had witness testimony transcribed, and as noted, the 911 call(s). It's O.K. to have an opinion under the circumstances. Having the LEOs make inconsistent commands and then shooting the victim for attempting to "drop his gun" in it's holster when ordered to do so is perverse. In your world very few people would be able to say anything about anything as most people have lives and would not sit through an entire cornorer's inquest in order to form an opinion. Your point of view is odd to say the least. Since I missed WWII (My dad served and was a witness but I'll ignore what he says based on your logic because I was not there and I'm never going to be able to form an opinion about Hitler because I never witnessed him) I do agree with with you about the "ambulance chasers" in general and as a recovering "ambulance chaser" I will bet the farm that the victim's family will get a significant amount of $$$. You work for a fantastic outfit from what I've read but never witnessed it but would buy from you all based on your fine reputation/products. I still want to know why you would have a quote from a convicted pedophile as a tag line? I know, I did not "witness" him download the child porn0 but he admitted he did so - and therefore I have an opinion about "your" pedophile.

pax · October 3, 2010, 10:33 AM

There's a very provocative series of posts over on the Confederate Yankee blog. Worth reading, wherever you fall in your beliefs on this one. (Note the timestamps on the posts as the news comes out.)

First post

Update 2

Update 3

Update 3.2

Update 4

pax

Wildalaska · October 3, 2010, 10:39 AM

Quote:

I called it a "goat rope" and a "train wreck" and it most certainly was. Do you see what happened as a preferred outcome for any of the participants?

I try not to judge or offer my opinion on all these wonderful little tete a tetes between idiots we have called to our attention, preferring to sit back bemusedly, especially when its 7:30 am, pitch dark and Arsenal is playing Chelsea, but since you (and only for you) asked, may I respond by saying your adjectives of "goat rope" and "train wreck".....

Are far too kind, although best suitable for a family Board.

Now we will go through the inevitable civil trial, replete with the truth lost in the lawyer fog of law, for now the allmighty dollar is on the table and the pockets are big.

My philosophy: Dont be enough of a jerk so as to have other jerks hurt you due to mutual jerkness.

WildpackmyshootingbagathalftimeAlaska ™©2002-2010

Wildalaska · October 3, 2010, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Wid Alaska - You don't have to witness something to have an opinion. Your "logic" is bizzare.Your "logic" is bizzare. I don't feel the need to travel to Korea to witness the rampant starvation widely reported and seen on smuggled video tapes to believe that living there is hell on earth for the average citizen.

Really? Are you saying there is no difference between the blind man feeeling the sun on his shoulders and concluding the sun is up and determining the motives and indeed actions of someone from something you have read or have been told second hand?

Quote:

I still want to know why you would have a quote from a convicted pedophile as a tag line? I know, I did not "witness" him download the child porn0 but he admitted he did so - and therefore I have an opinion about "your" pedophile.

Ya kinda lost me there pilgrim

But Didier Drogba just scored for Chelsea. 13 goals. If I was gay I'd have a poster of him on my wall. You can see the fear in the eyes of defenders when he bears down on goal. And the sun is rising

johnbt · October 3, 2010, 11:47 AM

"There's a very provocative series of posts over on the Confederate Yankee blog"

A lot of it seems to be downright one-sided, biased and over-the-top speculative. Lot's of 'we don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the worst because cops are liars'

ZeroJunk · October 3, 2010, 11:50 AM

My problem with this whole deal is that if the Costco employee had not seen the pistol, nothing would have happened. Nothing that I read indicates that he ever threatened anybody or brandished the weapon. Some eyewitnesses testified that he did not pull the guin on the police or go for it at all. I sus pest we have all done little exercises in one class or another where some action was taken and different people where asked to describe the action with some almost comical variations in what was seen or heard to have transpired. If there is no video of the incident then it will be hard to prove one way or another. Personally, I think the cops panicked. (Yes, I understand the obligatory put yourself in their shoes.) I don't understand automatically taking the side with the LEO's.

Tamara · October 3, 2010, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnbt

A lot of it seems to be downright one-sided, biased and over-the-top speculative. Lot's of 'we don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the worst because cops are liars'

That's an interesting charge to level at the author of those posts, given that he was a police officer for 20 years.

And I certainly don't see him "assuming the worst".

Would you say that the situation was handled optimally by store personnel and responding units?

Do you think that, given the almost certainty of a pending seven-figure lawsuit, the LVMPD has an understandable interest in painting the conduct of its representatives on the scene in the most favorable light possible?

Nobody's gonna sue the cops or the mall ninja, except in the most pro forma of fashions, because we all know where the deep pockets are here, and to expect that the deep pockets in question would not immediately go into full damage control mode is bordering on naive.

Double Naught Spy · October 3, 2010, 01:40 PM

Strangely, the lawyer for the Scott family claimed to have 20-25 witnesses that said Erik Scott did not draw his gun on the cops, but when the cops asked him for his witness list, he refused to give it, not wanting his witnesses subjected to the coroner's inquest because he already knew it would be a circus. Apparently, he is saving them for the civil suit.

Strangely, even Scott's girlfriend noted that he drew his gun and she was with him, but thought the cops were wrong for shooting him, since he was obviously not going to shoot the cops.

Except for the witnesses that the lawyer would not produce, nearly all of them that saw the shooting saw Scott draw his gun after being ordered to the ground by the cops and the cops responded in an appropriate manner to stop the threat.

As for listening to what the uniformed cops commanded and complying, there was some controversy early on that Scott was confused by what they ordered. Strangely, none of the witnesses reported hearing the cops order Scott to draw his gun. So while he may have been confused about showing his hands and getting on the ground, none of the commands were for his gun.

Scott may have been confused, very confused. He apparently was not of the mind to be able to fill out a Costco membership applicaiton successfully without help from his girlfriend. He told a clerk that he was a Green Beret (which he wasn't).

Drawing your gun on the cops when being ordered to the ground is never a good idea.

Al Norris · October 3, 2010, 01:58 PM

Despite what has been said about the reporting in "Confederate Yankee," Mike McDaniel has presented a very even handed report, considering the facts as he knows them. The ongoing plausibilities he brought up, did in fact change as new information was made available.

Now, if someone would please explain the shot to the armpit, it may or may not change my opinion as to what actually happened. Oh, was it ever established which armpit (right or left) was shot?

Tamara · October 3, 2010, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Nought Spy

So while he may have been confused about showing his hands and getting on the ground, none of the commands were for his gun.

This statement doesn't seem to quite jibe with the following, from the transcript I read:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 911 Transcript

14:16 (Unidentified Officer’s Voice(s) in Background): “Put your hands where I see them now, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground...”

Do you suppose that a man who was, in your words, "confused, very confused" might become even more confused and attempt to "drop it" as ordered?

Also, most of the testimony I read seems to agree that his heater was still in its clip-on IWB holster, with gun and holster together on the ground. Is it possible that the "confused, very confused" Mr. Scott was attempting to remove the pistol from his belt in the one-one-thousand-two-one-thousand between the initial challenge and the first shot?

In retrospect, do you think that this could have been handled better by anyone there, or are you satisfied with the way events unfolded?

Brian Pfleuger · October 3, 2010, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Do you suppose that a man who was, in your words, "confused, very confused" might become even more confused and attempt to "drop it" as ordered?

It seems to me, and yes, I've read the transripts, that the events went down like this, in very rapid succesion, sometimes simultaneously/overlapping.

Officer sees suspect.

Officer tells suspect to turn around and sees gun in waistband when suspect turns.

The following happens in very short order, less than a few seconds total time:
Officer yells "Show me your hands", Suspect may or may not comply

Suspect says "I have a gun"

Officer yells "Get down on the ground"

Suspect pulls gun out of waitband

Officers yells "Drop it"

Suspect points gun toward officer

Officer fires two rounds

Other officers are not certain who has fired and also fire several rounds.

These orders from the officer are not contradictory, they are responding to the rapidly unfolding situation.

It's like reading a story where an officer says "Have a seat in the back of my car." and then says "Alright, get out of the car." Those two things are contradictory but did they happen 5 minutes apart or 2 seconds apart?

Contradiction is situationally based.

"Show me your hands!"... "Get on the ground." Not contradictory. Hands shown, get down. Rather than get down, suspect draws gun. "Drop it!" Also not contradictory, something has happened. Suspect has drawn gun rather than "Get on the ground!". A new order is justified and shooting becomes justified when the gun is pointed at the officer.

ZeroJunk · October 3, 2010, 03:39 PM

Well, if the 1911 type pistol photographed at the scene per the coroner's report was still in the holster per the coroner's report it is hard for me to see how he pointed it at them. The officer testified that he did not realize the pistol was still in the holster.

You know that nobody pulls the holster and all. It is more likely that the guy was trying to surrender his weapon and the cop panicked and shot him.

October 3, 2010, 10:08 AM	#38
Tamara Moderator Emeritus Join Date: March 11, 2000 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 16,002	Wildalaska, Now who's reading stuff into what was said? I called it a "goat rope" and a "train wreck" and it most certainly was. Do you see what happened as a preferred outcome for any of the participants? __________________ MOLON LABE! 2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium. The Arms Room: An Online Museum.

October 3, 2010, 10:22 AM	#39
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	Wid Alaska - You don't have to witness something to have an opinion. Your "logic" is bizzare. I don't feel the need to travel to Korea to witness the rampant starvation widely reported and seen on smuggled video tapes to believe that living there is hell on earth for the average citizen. Here we had witness testimony transcribed, and as noted, the 911 call(s). It's O.K. to have an opinion under the circumstances. Having the LEOs make inconsistent commands and then shooting the victim for attempting to "drop his gun" in it's holster when ordered to do so is perverse. In your world very few people would be able to say anything about anything as most people have lives and would not sit through an entire cornorer's inquest in order to form an opinion. Your point of view is odd to say the least. Since I missed WWII (My dad served and was a witness but I'll ignore what he says based on your logic because I was not there and I'm never going to be able to form an opinion about Hitler because I never witnessed him) I do agree with with you about the "ambulance chasers" in general and as a recovering "ambulance chaser" I will bet the farm that the victim's family will get a significant amount of $$$. You work for a fantastic outfit from what I've read but never witnessed it but would buy from you all based on your fine reputation/products. I still want to know why you would have a quote from a convicted pedophile as a tag line? I know, I did not "witness" him download the child porn0 but he admitted he did so - and therefore I have an opinion about "your" pedophile. Last edited by jmortimer; October 3, 2010 at 11:34 AM.

October 3, 2010, 10:33 AM	#40
pax Senior Member Join Date: May 16, 2000 Location: In a state of flux Posts: 7,520	There's a very provocative series of posts over on the Confederate Yankee blog. Worth reading, wherever you fall in your beliefs on this one. (Note the timestamps on the posts as the news comes out.) First post Update 2 Update 3 Update 3.2 Update 4 pax __________________ Kathy Jackson My personal website: Cornered Cat

October 3, 2010, 01:40 PM	#46
Double Naught Spy Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX Posts: 12,717	Strangely, the lawyer for the Scott family claimed to have 20-25 witnesses that said Erik Scott did not draw his gun on the cops, but when the cops asked him for his witness list, he refused to give it, not wanting his witnesses subjected to the coroner's inquest because he already knew it would be a circus. Apparently, he is saving them for the civil suit. Strangely, even Scott's girlfriend noted that he drew his gun and she was with him, but thought the cops were wrong for shooting him, since he was obviously not going to shoot the cops. Except for the witnesses that the lawyer would not produce, nearly all of them that saw the shooting saw Scott draw his gun after being ordered to the ground by the cops and the cops responded in an appropriate manner to stop the threat. As for listening to what the uniformed cops commanded and complying, there was some controversy early on that Scott was confused by what they ordered. Strangely, none of the witnesses reported hearing the cops order Scott to draw his gun. So while he may have been confused about showing his hands and getting on the ground, none of the commands were for his gun. Scott may have been confused, very confused. He apparently was not of the mind to be able to fill out a Costco membership applicaiton successfully without help from his girlfriend. He told a clerk that he was a Green Beret (which he wasn't). Drawing your gun on the cops when being ordered to the ground is never a good idea. __________________ "If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

October 3, 2010, 03:39 PM	#50
ZeroJunk Senior Member Join Date: August 14, 2006 Location: Browns Summit NC Posts: 2,589	Well, if the 1911 type pistol photographed at the scene per the coroner's report was still in the holster per the coroner's report it is hard for me to see how he pointed it at them. The officer testified that he did not realize the pistol was still in the holster. You know that nobody pulls the holster and all. It is more likely that the guy was trying to surrender his weapon and the cop panicked and shot him. Last edited by ZeroJunk; October 3, 2010 at 03:46 PM.

October 2, 2010, 08:09 PM	#30
oldcspsarge Senior Member Join Date: January 11, 2008 Location: Rocky Mountains Posts: 441	It is a sad situation that the CCW holder placed in motion...period. IF you are a CCW or current/retired LEO...it doesn't matter ! You MUST listen to the uniformed Officers AND DO EXACTLY as they say ! Had he done that, he would have been proned out, handcuffed....ID'd and probably released with a trespassing ticket. He chose poorly and paid the ultimate price. IF you are going to drink and/or use prescription drugs....leave the guns at home ! IF you think you are going to tell the Uniform Cops anything...you are wrong ! You DO NOT EVER reach for your firearm to "Surrender it" or you can count on being SHOT ! You can run your mouth about civil court and burden of proof until the cows come home.....but you will NEVER bring that poor foolish man back to life ! Everybody gets to second guess and monday morning quarterback what the cops decisions that were made in a matter of seconds....from the brass to the victims wife...but you cannot reverse what happened. The PD responded to a man with a gun call. Until he is controlled, restrained and then disarmed.....the Cops have the DUTY to do exactly as trained and protect themselves. The CCW holder SHOULD have followed the Officers instructions....and he would be alive. I hope this sad situation opens the eyes of those who CCW....Listen and Live ! CCW permits are great....as is the responsibility. To the Cops responding, you are an ARMED CRIMINAL until proven otherwise. Follow their instructions and everything will be resolved according to the law. Go for the gun..... YOU WILL DIE...real simple . Identifying yourself as a CCW holder MAY lower the stress level BUT just go along with the Cops...it could be SWAT or Barney Fife...but go along with their instructions and LIVE to tell about it !

October 3, 2010, 11:47 AM	#43
johnbt Senior Member Join Date: December 6, 1999 Location: Richmond, Virginia USA Posts: 6,004	"There's a very provocative series of posts over on the Confederate Yankee blog" A lot of it seems to be downright one-sided, biased and over-the-top speculative. Lot's of 'we don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the worst because cops are liars'

October 3, 2010, 11:50 AM	#44
ZeroJunk Senior Member Join Date: August 14, 2006 Location: Browns Summit NC Posts: 2,589	My problem with this whole deal is that if the Costco employee had not seen the pistol, nothing would have happened. Nothing that I read indicates that he ever threatened anybody or brandished the weapon. Some eyewitnesses testified that he did not pull the guin on the police or go for it at all. I sus pest we have all done little exercises in one class or another where some action was taken and different people where asked to describe the action with some almost comical variations in what was seen or heard to have transpired. If there is no video of the incident then it will be hard to prove one way or another. Personally, I think the cops panicked. (Yes, I understand the obligatory put yourself in their shoes.) I don't understand automatically taking the side with the LEO's.

October 3, 2010, 01:58 PM	#47
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Despite what has been said about the reporting in "Confederate Yankee," Mike McDaniel has presented a very even handed report, considering the facts as he knows them. The ongoing plausibilities he brought up, did in fact change as new information was made available. Now, if someone would please explain the shot to the armpit, it may or may not change my opinion as to what actually happened. Oh, was it ever established which armpit (right or left) was shot?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search