The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 29, 2010, 09:53 AM   #1
swinokur
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 17, 2009
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 215
Las Vegas Costco shooting ruled justifiable

The Las Vegas Coroners Inquest has ruled that the Eric Scott shooting was justifiable.

The family plans a civil suit against Las Vegas Metro and the individual LEO's

Hope this is not considered a drive by.

Last edited by swinokur; October 1, 2010 at 09:43 AM.
swinokur is offline  
Old September 29, 2010, 10:21 AM   #2
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
Gee - what a surprise. I like the five bullets in the victims back.
jmortimer is offline  
Old September 29, 2010, 11:25 AM   #3
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,153
Regardless of whether the police shooting was justified, it was not responsible for him to be carrying while on morphine based painkillers and Xanax. Same would go for alcohol or any judgment impairing drugs.

Also about Xanax:
Quote:
Do not drink alcohol while taking Xanax. This medication can increase the effects of alcohol. Xanax can cause side effects that may impair your thinking or reactions. Be careful if you drive or do anything that requires you to be awake and alert.

Read more: http://www.drugs.com/xanax.html#ixzz10w7iu3RT
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."
- James Madison
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old September 29, 2010, 11:30 AM   #4
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Gee - what a surprise. I like the five bullets in the victims back.
This is a multiple officer shooting, not a single person defensive scenario.

The OTHER officer was being threatened by the deceased. He was hit "in the back" because the officers partner was at an entirely different angle and was defending his partner.

Shot placement in officer involved shooting is often irrelevant from the typical "shot in the back" scenario.


Frankly, stupid is as stupid does. Drink and take prescription drugs, wave a gun around and end up dead. I have no sympathy. Darwin's law at work.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old September 29, 2010, 03:37 PM   #5
ADB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Posts: 399
From what I've heard, the Las Vegas inquest process is a joke, and has NEVER failed to find an officer involved shooting to be "justified." Even in cases where they've later gotten the crap kicked out of them in civil court wrongful death cases.
ADB is offline  
Old September 29, 2010, 07:20 PM   #6
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
has NEVER failed to find an officer involved shooting to be "justified."

Maybe there's never been an instance that was inappropriate?

Civil court is a completely different world. All you need is sympathy and/or a couple of "lottery ticket" jurors.

99.999% of officer involved shootings are 100% justified. It should be expected to be an exceedingly rare event to find the officer in the wrong.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old September 29, 2010, 08:13 PM   #7
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
No they found one bad shoot in the last 32 years. The cornor's inquest is little more than a Soviet show trial. Victim's gun was in his holster when he was killed. The LEOs gave him two conflicting orders and victim was complying with one of the commands. I will never agree that five bullets to the back could ever be justified. That the victim was using medication was not material and it is mere specultation what role that played. Expert testimony on that issue was not conclusive in any way.
jmortimer is offline  
Old September 29, 2010, 08:38 PM   #8
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,153
Whether the drugs played a role or not in this specific case does not make it responsible to take mind affecting drugs and carry a gun in general. One or the other, but not both simultaneously.
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."
- James Madison
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old September 29, 2010, 08:39 PM   #9
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
I will never agree that five bullets to the back could ever be justified.
Really?

Two officers approach a suspect. The suspect faces directly away from one officer, left shoulder angled toward the other, produces a firearm and fires it toward the officer to his left.

You would say that the officer behind the suspect can not return fire because he may hit the suspect in the back?

There are times when a civilian could conceivably shoot an aggressor in the back and be justified. It's not hard at all to imagine any number of scenarios involving police officers.



This is really simple. The dead guy acted like a jack-ass. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have been shot, hell, the police would have never been called.

Were there mistakes made on the part of the officers? Probably. Who bears the ultimate responsibility? The guy who started the whole thing.

HE causes the commotion.

HE got the store evacuated.

HE acted in a manner that required police presence.

HE drew a gun, holstered or otherwise, and pointed it in a manner that was perceived as threatening.

HE is dead. C'est La Vie.

Point a gun at cops and you'll probably be dead. It's one of the simpler rules of life, really.

Now the father says that the STORE bears the brunt of the responsibility for his dead son. Give me a break. His son bears the responsibility.

Don't
Act
Like
A
Jack-Ass
When
You're
Carrying
A
Gun.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old September 29, 2010, 09:24 PM   #10
Young.Gun.612
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla
99.999% of officer involved shootings are 100% justified.
And 73% of all statistics on the internet are completely false...

I heartily disagree that virtually all officer involved shootings are justified. I'm not saying that most, or a very high percentage aren't. But based on what I've seen, the number is much, much lower than 99.999%.
Young.Gun.612 is offline  
Old September 29, 2010, 09:36 PM   #11
swinokur
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 17, 2009
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 215
Quote:
That the victim was using medication was not material and it is mere speculation what role that played. Expert testimony on that issue was not conclusive in any way.
Eye witness accounts and toxicology reports would indicate otherwise. This guy was responsible for his own death. I'n glad no one else got hurt by his irresponsibility. I view him the same as a drunk driver, If he had lived, he would be guilty of a felony.

I'm not buying the he's a victim or he's a good guy excuse. Testimony from his own neighbors was negative. Read all the transcripts and make a decision based on that. Point a gun at a cop, with a holster on it or not and it is not going to end well.Guns can shoot fine in a holster.
swinokur is offline  
Old September 30, 2010, 02:11 AM   #12
ADB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Posts: 399
Quote:
Civil court is a completely different world. All you need is sympathy and/or a couple of "lottery ticket" jurors.
I call BS. What percentage of the public do you believe is wandering around just waiting for the opportunity to screw the taxpayers? Any qualified lawyer will tell you that on average in cases against the government, it's harder to get people to support damages than it is in a case against a person.
ADB is offline  
Old September 30, 2010, 02:30 AM   #13
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
There is no excuse for someone to be carrying weapons under the influence.

Neither is there any excuse for the pitiful, embarrassing, and tragically inept training these officers exhibited.

The problem I have with the finding of justified is that it doesn't acknowledge ANY of the monumental mistakes made by the officers or the reporting security guard who exaggerated 911 call in the first place.

The reason the deceased lifted his shirt was to identify the location of the weapon, because he was being given multiple conflicting and nonsensical commands, simultaneously, from at least three officers, screaming DROP THE GUN (when there was no gun in his hands), GET ON THE GROUND, KEEP YOUR HANDS UP, STOP RESISTING (while on his knees) etc.

Now how are you supposed to drop a gun that's in your waist band without touching it? How does one get face down on the ground while holding his hands over his head? And how can someone possibly comply with all of these commands at once?

There is also a significant evdence that the officers escalated the contact unnecessarily. Of course once they had escalated and bungled the bogus call to the point where they had the guy attempting (stupidly) to surrender his weapon it was too late.

Since before and after the police arrived, he wasn't violent or aggressive, hadn't threatened anybody, and by all accounts was merely about the business of shopping. They could have, and should have initiated the contact in a much different manner.

They could have had all the cover they needed, but calmly disarmed the man, and everyone would have been much safer than they were when the cops started slinging lead. There is no doubt that the man would have cooperated. If he didn't cooperate they could have shot him anyway. He was, in fact, clumsily attempting to cooperate with the confusing and inept commands when he was shot.

These overlooked facts will be even more costly when this gets to civil court, where the taxpayers will, no doubt, be on the hook for 100's of thousands, if not millions of dollars.

If the department won't even look at it's part of the responsibility then we can expect no better from their officers in the future.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old September 30, 2010, 07:23 AM   #14
blume357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
I read the linked article...

if half of what the witnesses say is true, not the LEO's the folks at the store, then the shooting was justified in my opinion. Sad, but true....

Yes, the police could have probably figured out a way to subdue the stoned guy other than shoot him... but you know it only takes one shot from an idiot to kill someone.

The dead guy is wholly responsible for his death... unfortunately the way it reads the lawyers for the family will now be going after the Store and the officers in civil court.... lawyers.....:barf::barf:
blume357 is offline  
Old September 30, 2010, 08:38 AM   #15
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
Quote:
.... lawyers.....:barf::barf:
Gotta love such generalizations!

Heller and McDonald, anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 30, 2010, 09:06 AM   #16
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by young.gun.612
And 73% of all statistics on the internet are completely false...

I heartily disagree that virtually all officer involved shootings are justified. I'm not saying that most, or a very high percentage aren't. But based on what I've seen, the number is much, much lower than 99.999%.
I really didn't think anyone would take those numbers as literal statistics. I guess I should say "virtually all" but that leaves you thinking that maybe I mean 80% is "virtually all".

I'd bet that it's 99%, anyway. That still leaves 1 in every 100 that would mean that the cops are criminal. That seems impossibly high to me.

Regardless, the fact remains that the deceased is responsible for his own death in this instance.

The officers may or may not have made errors in judgement or millisecond decisions that proved to be wrong. No matter what, they would never have had to make those decisions were it not for the actions of the deceased.

Costco is not responsible. The officers are not responsible. The deceased IS responsible.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old September 30, 2010, 08:02 PM   #17
langenc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,187
Most posters will never make it to the jury--no all posters.
langenc is offline  
Old September 30, 2010, 10:15 PM   #18
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
No they found one bad shoot in the last 32 years. The cornor's inquest is little more than a Soviet show trial. Victim's gun was in his holster when he was killed. The LEOs gave him two conflicting orders and victim was complying with one of the commands. I will never agree that five bullets to the back could ever be justified. That the victim was using medication was not material and it is mere specultation what role that played. Expert testimony on that issue was not conclusive in any way.
You were there and heard all the testimony, yes?

By the way, your analogy of ANY US inquest or court case to the Soviet Show trials (which one? Zinoviev et al, Radek's, Buhkarins?) is so historically inaccurate as to be laughable.


WildijustlovetherhetoricincopbashingcasesAlaska ™©2002-2010
Wildalaska is offline  
Old October 1, 2010, 12:13 AM   #19
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
Using your "logic" no one outside of attendees of the entire coroner's inquest could have an opinion. I read what was available to me and will not be ordering transcripts from the court reporter. My analogy was hyperbole so I never intended a direct correlation to a specific so called Soviet show trial but I am concerned that in 32 years there has been only one bad LEO shoot as determined by the cornoner's inquest. The expert witness testimony I read was conflicted and in the end my opinion is that the victim died needlessly.
P.S. Love your nonsense tag line from a pedophile/sodomite.

Last edited by jmortimer; October 1, 2010 at 09:26 AM.
jmortimer is offline  
Old October 1, 2010, 02:05 AM   #20
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
The desire to completely absolve officers is understandable, but ignores the real facts of the case. Mistakes were made that caused this man's death, period. The dynamic approach was all wrong.

He wasn't violent, hadn't been ask to leave, therefore never refused to leave, and he hadn't threatened anybody. His crime was having a gun, and the bad luck to be confronted by officers whose training was spotty, to be blunt.

It was only after the fact, the prescription drugs were made into an issue. There was no suspicion that he was under the influence until the character assignation campaign was begun by the department in order to deflect the attention from mistakes made at the bungled call.

The situation became multiple times more dangerous for everybody when the officers arrived, drew their weapons and caused chaos by escalating the drama instead of wisely observing, assessing and de-escalating. Prior to the police arriving, there was no threat observed, or articulated by ANY witness.

Sorry. I can't go with the police on this one. We don't have a death penalty for the use of prescription drugs, unless the behavior warrants it by brandishing or threatening someone. In this case the behavior clearly did NOT.

Scott was attempting to comply with a stupid, nonsensical and under the circumstances dangerous order: "Drop the gun". One cannot drop a gun that one is not holding. When he did surrender the weapon, it was still in it's holster. This is the point at which he was shot.

The whole thing stinks from moment of the exaggerated 911 call the security made to Metro, to the very public character assassination campaign in the local paper only days before the inquest, where they quoted the man's estranged ex-wife in order to discredit him. Pathetic.

And we STILL have not seen video from the state of the art remote camera system that Costco was boasting about only weeks before. Why not?

Last edited by maestro pistolero; October 1, 2010 at 02:11 AM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old October 1, 2010, 09:04 AM   #21
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Strangely enough, I've NEVER had the police called on me. Not once in my whole life. I've never caused a public (or private) disturbance. I don't yell, raise my voice or threaten, or even act in a manner to be perceived as threatening. Fat is, the police were called because of his actions. HE is responsible. The police may or may not have made mistakes. They're human and it happens. Sometimes, in an instance where a firearm is involved, those mistakes prove fatal. It's unfortunate, but they should never have had the opportunity to make the mistakes. The officers should not lose their livelihoods, families and freedom for a mistake that should rest squarely on someone elses shoulders.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old October 1, 2010, 09:19 AM   #22
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
. . . The police may or may not have made mistakes.
Quote:
. . . The officers should not lose their livelihoods, families and freedom for a mistake that should rest squarely on someone elses shoulders.

So even if they make mistakes that contribute to a death, the blame still rests squarely on the shoulders of the deceased? He can lose his life, and that's ok, but the officers shouldn't lose their livelihoods. I wonder if you would feel the same way if it was your son?

Remember. He only had a gun. He didn't threaten anybody, he wasn't ask to leave. He was shopping. He only attempted to obey a stupid command by handing over his holstered weapon when ordered to drop the gun that he wasn't holding. Somebody please explain to me how this is OK?

Even if the dynamic approach WAS called-for (which it wasn't, according to the facts), ONE officer giving the command to get down on the ground would have accomplished the goal. Not three officers screaming conflicting orders.

This critical breakdown in immediate command caused the pandemonium and the understandable confusion on the part of the deceased.

If this were all somehow OK, then there would be no bounds to the mistakes police may make with impunity. And I don't believe that to be true. Their errors resulted in a death. They may be exonerated, but they will have the burden of living with this for the rest of their life.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; October 1, 2010 at 09:39 AM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old October 1, 2010, 10:30 AM   #23
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
The officers should be held responsible if they had murderous intent. They were responding to a situation created by the OP. While I have no doubt that he was generally of good character, he was clearly not "just shopping" and a number of people felt threatened. They didn't call the police for no reason.

It's obvious that there are a number of posters in this thread are completely sold on the story as presented by the family of the deceased. I am not. Witness testimony suggests that he made a good number of poor decisions, starting before the arrival of the police and continuing from there to the actual shooting. Did he "deserve" to die for those decisions? Maybe, maybe not. The fact remains that he chose to do those things and the officers MUST (not choose, MUST) respond to his actions. They have split seconds to make their decisions, not the days and weeks of the internet quarterback. Unless their intent was murderous, they are not responsible. They did not act with gross negligence or murderous intent as such, their decisions, no matter how we find them after the fact, are what they are.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old October 1, 2010, 10:47 AM   #24
rlmxracer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2010
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 12
I have worked in the medical field for 15yrs (mostly ER). I 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.
rlmxracer is offline  
Old October 1, 2010, 01:09 PM   #25
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
I have worked in the medical field for 15yrs (mostly ER). I 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.
Absolutely. He had no business with a gun if impaired. It's just that there was no aggression on the part of this subject. Whatever drugs he may or may not have on board, it is the behavior that should dictate the response.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14097 seconds with 7 queries