Posted on 09/27/2010 9:40:32 AM PDT by pgyanke
Erik Scott's Death - A Father's Statement 8/30/2010
Erik's family would like to keep our class updated on what is occurring in the case of Erik's death.
Below is a statement from Erik's father, William Scott.
Please support the Scott Family by following: http://erikbscott.com Twitter: @IMOErikBscott Facebook: In Memory of Erik Scott Twitter: @IMOErikBScott YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/InMemoryofErikScott
Erik Scott's Death
Erik B. Scott, a 1994 U.S. Military Academy at West Point graduate, was shot and killed by three Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) officers in front of the Summerlin Costco store on 10 July 2010. The shooting is still under investigation, but here are the basic facts, based on numerous eyewitness reports:
Erik was carrying a legally registered concealed firearm, while he and his girlfriend were shopping at Costco. He also had a concealed carry permit in his wallet, issued by the same Metro department that killed him.
When Erik squatted on the floor to verify that three metal water bottles would fit into a soft-sided, zip-up cooler, a Costco employee saw the weapon. Erik's shirt had lifted up, revealing an inside-the-belt holstered pistol tucked into the back of his jeans. A civil interchange ensued, and the employee informed Erik of Costco's policy that guns were not allowed inside company stores -- although there are no signs to that effect posted outside or inside the facility. Erik calmly responded that his gun was legal and that he had a concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit on his person. Like many other Boston Scientific pacemaker sales reps, Erik carried a concealed weapon for personal protection, because reps are required to enter dangerous areas of the city at all hours of the day and night to serve patients fitted with cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators. Contrary to wildly erroneous news reports, we don't believe Erik had a second gun on his person.
The Costco employee apparently reported to the store's manager that Erik was carrying a gun. The manager, in turn, informed a young, plainclothes security person, who subsequently placed a 911 call to the police. The contents of that 911 call have not been released, but Northwest Metro cops rushed to the store in overwhelming force. Perhaps as many as 15 police cruisers, a helicopter, an incident-command team and an ambulance were dispatched.
Costco managers announced via the PA system that the store was being evacuated. Unaware that the evacuation had anything to do with him, Erik and his girlfriend walked out with the crowd, passing three Metro officers waiting at the entrance. The Costco undercover security guard pointed to Erik, and the cops started yelling at Erik to stop and turn around.
Erik turned to find three officers facing him, guns drawn, and all three shouting different commands: "Get on the ground!" "Drop your weapon!" and "Keep your hands up!" Erik held his hands up, spoke calmly, told them he DID have a concealed firearm and a legal CCW and was an ex-Army officer. His girlfriend was screaming about Erik being a West Point grad, former Army officer, etc. Erik leaned to his left, hands still up, to expose the pistol inside his belt, and repeated, "I am disarming; I am disarming..." Witnesses say he started to lower his right hand, palm OUT, as if intending to remove holster and gun together — but never got the hand below his shoulder, when one of the cops (William Mosher, who had committed a fatal shooting in 2006) shot Erik in the chest with a .45-caliber weapon. Erik dropped to his knees, clearly in shock, his face a picture of disbelief. He was shot a second time and collapsed. The rest is ugly. The three officers unloaded again, firing a total of seven hollow-point rounds. At least five, possibly six, hit Erik in the back, after he was on the ground and dying.
The cops roughly handcuffed Erik's hands behind his back, and, in the words of an eyewitness, "tossed him onto a gurney [as if he were] a sack of potatoes."
Costco had numerous security cameras inside the store and at least four trained on the entrance portico, where the shooting took place. Metro officers immediately seized the surveillance-camera video data (computer hard disks), including backup drives. Within hours, Metro leaked "news" that the video may be "unusable," and that the hard drives had been sent to a forensics lab in Los Angeles. More than six weeks later, only Metro personnel have seen the video. Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, the Metro chief, continues to say that "there's probably no usable video" of events inside the store or of Erik's fatal shooting. He also has refused to release the 911 audio tape, even though Metro normally releases those 911 call tapes to the media within days.
There's been considerable media coverage of Erik's shooting, and many of the news reports are available on Las Vegas TV station and Las Vegas Review Journal newspaper websites. Erik's family and friends have done numerous interviews, as we search for the truth about Erik's slaying. Many people think one of our more-effective interviews was on Channel 8/KLAS TV with George Knapp of the "I-Team." (http://www.8newsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=12809131)
A Clark County Coroner's Inquest Hearing is scheduled for 22-23 September in Las Vegas. Considered to be unique in the U.S., this particular inquest process is heavily biased in favor of law enforcement personnel. A Las Vegas reporter referred to it as "police investigating police and reporting to police." In 34 years of inquests into more than 190 officer-involved shootings, only one officer has been found at fault — and he was never prosecuted.
Interested parties can follow developments in this case, as well as an "E-Team" weblog featuring commentary and insights, at: http://www.erikbscott.com
William B. Scott Erik's Father
*Note that this information was not created by USMA Class of 1994. All information was provided by the Scott Family in order to keep Erik's friends and classmates informed.*
Cops in general would be much happier if only they had guns. I speak as someone who has cops in the family.
The majority don’t believe the average gun-carrying citizen should be allowed to carry and don’t believe they are as ‘well-trained’ as they are. In fact the typical ccw holder goes to the range more often, gets more target practice, and when they have to shoot at a criminal, are much better shots without hitting bystanders, and don’t ‘pray and spray’ like the police often do.
I would appreciate some source to verify that accusation. It keeps being made by those who desire to inflame so at least offer a source for where you got that accusation.
One cashier testified that he fell onto the belt by her without tripping over anything. She said Scott told her that he was "messed up". Scott's girlfriend then propped him up with a shopping cart.
The membership clerk said that he wrote illegibly on his application and in the wrong spaces. His girlfriend ended up filling out the application for him.
Other witnesses said he had trouble walking and that his eyes were glossy or red.
Scott was unable to follow any commands by the police.
Therefore, Scott was carrying the weapon illegally according to Nevada law.
After a speedy trial, of course. Their execution needs to be very public and very soon.
Hmmm...Scott was able to send text messages, and had the dexterity to remove his entire holster with one hand - not always the easiest with that type holster. Maybe he wasn’t as messed up as the employees remember.
Further, I do not concede that he couldn’t obey commands. He received multiple commands. If I were exiting a store and armed cops started yelling at me, I’d be a bit confused as well...it isn’t something a law abiding person expects. And a few seconds later, they were shooting his back...
Frankly, I think the whole thing could have been avoided if the cop had just said, “Sir? Can we have a moment of your time?”
He was taking heavy doses of prescription drugs. So was Rush Limbaugh for a while - and he talked on national radio without anyone suspecting anything. What combo is best for chronic pain, including following a recent car accident, is something for doctors to debate. Morphine used in pain control controls pain. It enables the person taking it, not disables.
There are some interesting arguments both for and against here:
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?113550-Carrying-while-taking-Medication
What was STUPID was when they testified that Scott was taking lethal doses...if they had been lethal, the cops wouldn’t have had a chance to shoot him.
1. It is unlawful for a person who:
(a) Has a concentration of alcohol of 0.10 or more in his blood or breath; or
(b) Is under the influence of any controlled substance, or is under the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and a controlled substance, or any person who inhales, ingests, applies or otherwise uses any chemical, poison or organic solvent, or any compound or combination of any of these, to a degree which renders him incapable of safely exercising actual physical control of a firearm, to have in his actual physical possession any firearm. This prohibition does not apply to the actual physical possession of a firearm by a person who was within his personal residence and had the firearm in his possession solely for self-defense."
Well, according to the NV law then NO PERSON may legally carry a gun, unless able to do so without breathing. After all, Oxygen is a chemical and it is used in biological processes, therefore every breathing human being cannot legally carry a firearm in NV.
That's what the law says; perhaps not what it was meant to say, but that is irrelevant. We can now persecute and/or prosecute the police officers for violating that selfsame law.
Also note that "any person who inhales, ingests [...] any compound or combination of any of these" applies to those who drink water, or tea, or coffee, or milk, or juice, or soda....
Correct.
Even if everything you say is correct, it doesn’t matter what he was trying to do. All that matters is how his actions would have been interpreted by a reasonable officer taking into account their training and experience. Training and experience tells you to fire the moment that someone goes for a gun. You do not wait for an explanation of their motives. As was pointed out by some of the witnesses who also had CCWs, they were also taught this in CCW class.
Categorically false, your anecdotal "evidence" notwithstanding. Polls of police officers showed that the overwhelming majority not only support the right to keep and bear arms, but also that most would ignore any orders/law that required them to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens.
If someone takes in oxygen “to a degree which renders him incapable of safely exercising actual physical control of a firearm”, then oxygen would have made it illegal to carry.
I suspect that if the cops had handled it right, they would have stopped Scott by talking to him, then arrested him and he would have been fined/jailed for carrying with too many drugs in his system. The combo of witness testimony and blood sample would probably have sufficed for a conviction.
I’m not trying to argue that Scott had no blame, or that everything he did was right. He bears some of the blame for what happened. But he didn’t deserve to die. And if someone cannot tell from 6 feet if a guy is pulling a holster or a gun, then maybe his vision isn’t up to being a cop.
I realize “protect and serve” is a motto, not a legal requirement. However, following that motto is what makes good cops great, IMHO. Ignoring it is for cowards.
“Training and experience tells you to fire the moment that someone goes for a gun. You do not wait for an explanation of their motives. As was pointed out by some of the witnesses who also had CCWs, they were also taught this in CCW class.”
Nope. Not in the class I took. In fact, I was specifically told that someone reaching for a gun might have nothing to do with justification for shooting. I was also told that cops will sometimes tell you to ‘drop it’ or ‘hand it over’...the 2 instructors debated if it was wise to obey or better to just stick your arms up and not move.
Based on recent events, I’m inclined to say put your hands up and make them shoot you in the armpit. And if the inquest is at Las Vegas, that will probably be called a justified shooting. After all, the LVPD has shot many unarmed men without any questions being raised.
thank you for the info. was he legally taking the medicine?
were there innocent civilians that could have been injured or killed by that many bullets being fired? i’ve been to costco, there are always a lot of people in and out, and gathering around the doorway depending on what they have outside to look at.
Good review of police polls. Also note that in other large cities, cops sometimes fire improperly (30% error in NYC, 75% in LA). Good thing Las Vegas has a 0% error...
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Can-Citizens-Use-Guns-Competently
i know people who have to use the morphine pain patch. they are fine going about daily tasts.
Was Rush also taking a potentially lethal dose of Xanax mixed with his painkillers?
What was STUPID was when they testified that Scott was taking lethal doses...if they had been lethal, the cops wouldn’t have had a chance to shoot him.
The article I read said the coroner, Alane Olson said he had "potentially" lethal doses of morphine and Xanax in his system. Morphine was nearly six times the normally lethal dosage, Xanax was near the high end of the normally lethal dosage.
Three of his doctors testified at the inquest, so he did have prescriptions. However, a prescription can't be refilled until it is almost expired. In Florida, I know morphine is prescribed short term, like five days. So to account for the levels in Scott's blood, he either overdosed the prescriptions he had, or he was doctor shopping to get multiple prescriptions or obtaining his drugs from an illegal source.
This posting from William Scott is about a month old, and the sequence of events contained in it differs materially from the eyewitness testimony and other evidence submitted at the inquest. There is no testimony that Erik was told to disarm. There is no testimony that Erik spoke to any of the officers at all. There is no testimony that any officer other than Mosher was speaking to Erik, and only Mosher’s voice can be heard in the background of the 911 call recording.
While I have the greatest sympathy for William Scott, it is becomeing increasingly clear that the story he has been told, and is now re-telling, is incorrect.
Secret Agent Man said:
>They are targeting ex-army now.
>They let the crooks keep living that carry concealed and kill the permit holder.
>I believe cops like this understand law abiding people are the real enemy they face, they will be the ones that would go after crooked cops. And that these kinds of cops will start taking them out now.
I think that may be more correct an assessment than people want to admit. There are so many conflicting laws, especially those contrary to the Constitution, that the Law-Enforcement/’justice’ System can literally make anyone into a criminal; fortunately it isn’t *quite* to the point where they can wantonly execute ‘offenders’ [such as Erik Scott] as a matter of course and w/o fear of repercussion.
However... given that Lon Horiuchi* is a free man does indicate that we are extremely close to that point.
*(the sniper that killed Mrs. Weaver thus breaking even the FBI’s *quite* permissive Rules of Engagement to consider all adult MALES as hostile/armed-and-dangerous)
Dexter Morgan said:
>And the police wonder why law-abiding citizens grow more and more hostile towards the extortionist authorities, even during routine department fundraising stops.
[and]
>From observation, it seems that police unions are among the staunchest supporters of violating the 2nd Amendment and wish to disarm the public.
>
>If they cannot accomplish this by law, then they can accomplish it by making the penalty for gun possession so severe—via public execution by cop—that people will become too afraid to exercise their right to carry. If the sentiment is that you will be shot if you carry in public, then concealed carry will cease.
>
>It’s ironic that the police will execute a law-abiding citizen, without trial, but protect convicted murderers in prison for life with three square meals, cable tv, and conjugal visits.
I believe you are correct; the police are experiencing a nose-dive in public opinion/support precisely because they have been all too eager to trumpet that they “protect and serve” while enforcing laws that are contrary to the State Constitution [where they reside] and/or the Federal Constitution... and then they pull the moral equivalent of the “we were only following orders” defense that we would not accept from German military officials in the Nuremberg Trials when they say crap like “we don’t make the laws; only enforce them.”
freedomwarrior998 said:
[on the topic of law-abiding citizenry vs police]
>I guess the aliens will be coming for your brain as well?
Funny you should belittle him like that. I have a story that corroborates his supposition, if only tangentially.
I live in New Mexico, an open-carry state, and one Wednesday I went to a social gathering where I apparently made some people nervous[though they never told me directly] and I was asked by a man I respect to put the gun out in my vehicle; I acquiesced and thought that everything was taken care of.... I was wrong.
Unbeknownest to me, several of the leaders in this social group had a meeting afterward and called my National Guard unit [I was enlisted at the time], from there the story went around the rumor-mill until [on Friday] someone called the police apparently reporting that I was at my house waving my gun around.
When the police had arrived, late morning, I’d already been at a friend’s house (he had the Friday off and we were working through Gears of War 2) for several hours. I got a call then saying that the police were there and to stay put, and after a while I got a call saying to go home. When I got there the police were waiting for me, but they were calmed down [I believe it was because of the transit-time and because a police Sgt I knew from my national guard unit had gotten there before I arrived]. I spent several hours talking with the Sgt and he said that I didn’t do anything illegal.
I found out later what had happened while I was away was that the police had entered the property with their weapons-drawn and that they would not identify or state their purpose for the lady next door who questioned them as to why they were peering into her van. They asked was if I lived there [I do, it’s a set of apartments] and told her to “get back in the house” as a response to inquiring as to their presence. No warrant was ever shown to anyone, and there were children around when the police entered the property guns-drawn.
So, in that incident we see that the police WILL act on hearsay [the report was made by someone not in the area and who had seen or heard NOTHING], that they WILL enter/search private property w/o a warrant [the lady’s van at the VERY least], that they [as an organization] will act aggressively even on reports of perfectly lawful behavior... oh and that they will refuse the perfectly legitimate questioning of their intent and their identity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.