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.*
The cops are lying. I hope they’re all hunted down like dogs.
Lots of misinformation in your post.
1 - The doctor was both supposedly giving prescriptions, and also refusing to see Scott and had nothing to do with him (”Dr. Pearce said he does not know Erik Scott, has never treated him professionally, or was a patient of his.”).
2 - So, based on the laws of Nevada, what ARE the pertinent questions for the inquest to answer?
3 - “Scott was carrying his weapon illegally under the influence of drugs.” Not if he had valid prescriptions. If he did not, then he still was not committing a crime punishable by death.
4 - “He held up his hand to a Costco employee’s head as if it was a gun.” False. He said he would protect the Costco employee if he was threatened. You make it sound like he was threatening the man he said he would protect...
5 - “Scott immediately went for his gun when he was first contacted by the police.” No. He didn’t grab for his gun. He turned, and removed the holster with his gun in it. That is undeniable, and that is not the same as ‘going for his gun’.
6 - “He didn’t follow any commands. Two witnesses yesterday said when Mosher was giving commands, Scott was looking back and forth as if he was looking for a way out.” He seems to have received more than one command. Looking around is not consistent with trying to escape, but with disbelief that the incident is happening to him. I am certain that a person leaving Costco knew where the exit was without needing further looking.
7 - “From the information Mosher received from his dispatcher, he believed Scott was armed, under the influence of drugs, and threatening.” Agreed. Yet in reality, Scott didn’t try to attack anyone. That is a known fact. So the cop was obviously prepped to see something that wasn’t there, which would help explain why he didn’t know the gun was holstered until after he killed the man offering it.
Remember, the physical evidence proves Scott had no intent to shoot. It was impossible for him to do so.
8 - “Scott disobeyed any training he ever received as a soldier or as a CCW holder on how to disarm.” False. I was told the same sort of thing, with it being optional on handing the gun over or letting the cop remove it. Nor is a soldier trained on how to disarm. I spent 25 years in, and was trained to shoot, not to give up.
9 - “The only way the cops could have handled the situation better was with hindsight.” Nope. The cops needed to be less trigger happy and less confrontational. It is amazing how much more receptive someone is to “Sir, can I have a word with you for a minute?” than to “Drop it! On your knees!”
10 - “The best outcome would have been if Scott was in a detox center or a hospital where he belonged.” We largely agree on this,. The evidence shows Scott had become addicted to painkillers.
MHGinTN wrote, “I still haven’t found a single piece of data from the court supporting the accusation that he was shot after hitting the pavement.”
He was hit in the buttocks and the bullet travel up into the body. Unless Las Vegas cops are as short as they are fat, they couldn’t shoot him in the butt with an upward trajectory. Also, when I first read the news accounts in July, it sounded like the cops had Scott surrounded. I haven’t seen the inquest, but it sounds like they were not circled around him, but largely from the same direction. Unless one of the cops was directly behind him (which would mean the cops were shooting at each other as well as at the suspect), shooting Scott in the back 5 times seems at least odd.
Also, I believe one wound entered thru the armpit without going thru the arm.
“But to crucify the police for this is over the top agenda mongering.”
I’m not. I think Mosher (3 shootings in 5 years, 2 dead) needs to find other work. I don’t believe he committed a crime, but I do think he lacks SA and judgment. I also think the cops used terrible tactics.
1911s are single action guns. With the hammer down, at an absolute minimum, it would have to be pulled back to fire. And everything I’ve read says you don’t carry a 1911 with a hammer down on a round. Without seeing the inside of the gun (which the cops have and haven’t testified to, or at least it didn’t make the news reports), we KNOW he would have to pull the hammer back. If he carried it as recommended, he would have needed to remove the gun and rack the slide. Neither is something you do when someone already has a gun pointed at your chest, and there has been no testimony that Scott tried to remove the gun or rack the slide.
And when the cop testified that it was easy to shoot a gun like that (Kimber) from the holster, he was either lying or stupid. It isn’t easy to fire my revolver from that holster like that, and it is double action.
"Remember, the physical evidence proves Scott had no intent to shoot. It was impossible for him to do so." That is absolutely untrue! I have personally fired a Kimber carry by pulling the hammer back without pulling the trigger. By releasing the hammer before reaching the full cocked position, the hammer will strike the firing pin and send a round while also flipping the holster off of the weapon to release it from the holster.
And this little piece of deception you tried:
"He was hit in the buttocks and the bullet travel up into the body. Unless Las Vegas cops are as short as they are fat..." Um, since two of the police were behind him and Mosher in front, it would be natural to drop to the ground to fire at the suspect and remove yourself from the line of fire of the officer in front.
Your deceptions are clearly fabricated to serve an agenda. Your disgusting deceits expose your pretend perspective of objectivity. At this point, I wouldn't trust a single thing you assert. You are quite clever mixing your deceits in with some facts. You ain't what you claim to be, troll.
Well, I have problems with your rebuttal.
1 - I’ve never heard of anyone who carried a 1911 with the hammer down on a live round, and then planned on shooting it by fanning the hammer. Everything I’ve read said there are two ways to safely carry a 1911 - cocked and locked, or hammer down on an empty chamber.
I’ll post your technique on some gun forums to see if anyone else has heard or practiced that method. And if Scott was planning on it, then the testimony should have mentioned that there was a round int he chamber and that Scott might have been hoping to fan the hammer.
But frankly, I think your technique sounds like a real reach in an attempt to clear the name of a cop who admits he didn’t know the holster was wrapped around the gun. And the idea that someone pulls the holster with the gun so he can fan the hammer and blow off the holster while shooting it is nothing less than bizarre!
Also, before drawing (according to the testimony of Mosher), Scott announced he had a gun. Is that consistent with someone trying to outdraw and shoot the cops - to warn them?
2 - As I pointed out in my post, it seems the testimony does not support Scott being totally surrounded. If he was, it indicates gross stupidity on the part of the cops. And no one is claiming the other two cops dropped to the ground before firing. To pretend they did is to LIE.
I don’t know what your agenda is, but the truth isn’t part of it.
Lots more testimony (both sides, often conflicting the way normal witness testimony does) here:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/27/erik-scott-day5/
Perhaps Scott's girlfriend stole a prescription pad and Scott was writing prescriptions to himself. In any case, Scott was obtaining the drugs illegally using Dr. Pearce's prescriptions. There is no contradiction.
“Scott was carrying his weapon illegally under the influence of drugs.” Not if he had valid prescriptions. If he did not, then he still was not committing a crime punishable by death.
He had a level of drugs causing him to stumble, write incoherently, have glossy eyes, and tell someone he was messed up, therefore he was carrying a gun illegally. Had he followed the commands of the police, not immediately reached for the gun, or pointed it at the officer, he would be alive and facing justice for illegally carrying a firearm and obtaining prescriptions illegally.
“He held up his hand to a Costco employee’s head as if it was a gun.” False. He said he would protect the Costco employee if he was threatened. You make it sound like he was threatening the man he said he would protect...
He was having a confrontation with the employee about whether he could have the gun in the store. In a confrontation, a rational, friendly person does not act like he is pointing a gun at the person he says he is going to protect, especially when he is known to be armed.
“Scott immediately went for his gun when he was first contacted by the police.” No. He didn’t grab for his gun. He turned, and removed the holster with his gun in it. That is undeniable, and that is not the same as ‘going for his gun’.
Mosher testified on the first day that he touched Scott's left elbow, and Scott immediately reached for his gun. This was before Scott was facing the officer and pulled out the holster and the gun.
Agreed. Yet in reality, Scott didn’t try to attack anyone. That is a known fact. So the cop was obviously prepped to see something that wasn’t there, which would help explain why he didn’t know the gun was holstered until after he killed the man offering it. Remember, the physical evidence proves Scott had no intent to shoot. It was impossible for him to do so.
More 20/20 hindsight.
“Scott disobeyed any training he ever received as a soldier or as a CCW holder on how to disarm.” False. I was told the same sort of thing, with it being optional on handing the gun over or letting the cop remove it. Nor is a soldier trained on how to disarm. I spent 25 years in, and was trained to shoot, not to give up.
Most people I know who have received firearms training are told not to point a gun at anything unless they intend to shoot it, even if they think it is unloaded. Reaching for anything with three cops pointing their guns at you, telling you to show your hands and drop to the ground isn't in any instruction manual either. Is that what you would have done?
“In any case, Scott was obtaining the drugs illegally using Dr. Pearce’s prescriptions.”
That is your conjecture. But if Dr Pearce wrote the prescriptions, then it was not illegal for Scott to use them. It is also possible that Scott WAS illegally writing his own prescriptions, but that has not been shown.
“He had a level of drugs causing him to stumble, write incoherently, have glossy eyes, and tell someone he was messed up, therefore he was carrying a gun illegally.”
He had recently been in a car accident. If he wrote incoherently, they should have introduced the paper - even if the clerk initially threw it away, it ought to have been available for viewing. And the girlfriend may or may not provide differing testimony once it gets to a court. Remember, in the inquest, only the prosecution (whose job is to convict Scott) has a role.
“In a confrontation, a rational, friendly person does not act like he is pointing a gun at the person he says he is going to protect...”
He specifically told the employee that if someone tried to hurt him, he (Scott) would protect him. That is an odd sort of threat - ‘If anyone comes after you, I’ll stop him!’ Those are not the exact words, nor do I feel like digging them up.
“Mosher testified on the first day that he touched Scott’s left elbow, and Scott immediately reached for his gun. This was before Scott was facing the officer and pulled out the holster and the gun.”
Many CCW folks are a bit paranoid about losing their guns. That is why many unconsciously touch them, particularly after someone touched them first. Since he didn’t pull the gun then, he obviously didn’t grab it then.
When he did, it was the gun & holster that he removed as a unit. Good idea? No. But then, Scott KNEW the gun wasn’t a threat unless he racked the slide (or at a minimum, pulled the hammer back to fire). Perceptions work both ways. The police were expecting a dangerous threat. Scott knew he was not. Both worked from their own perceptions without thinking about the other person’s perceptions, which is why I believe this is a tragedy, not a crime.
The cops did not go to Costco to kill someone. Neither did Scott. Where we differ is that I don’t believe the cops were flawless. Of course, neither was Scott. Both, I believe, acted based on what they knew or thought they knew, rather than the facts that were happening - and that created a killing where none needed to occur.
“Reaching for anything with three cops pointing their guns at you, telling you to show your hands and drop to the ground isn’t in any instruction manual either. Is that what you would have done?”
Honestly, I don’t know. Before July, I would have found the scenario so unbelievable that I wouldn’t have thought about it. The two instructors of my CCW class (which I took a few weeks prior to Scott’s death) made it clear they considered being stopped by cops while carrying a scary thing for a non-cop. Both, when stopped, didn’t hesitate to tell the cop that they were former cops, which usually helped calm things down. Still, one had a cop stuff a .40 Glock in his face while shouting for him both to hand it over and not move. The cop’s finger was on the trigger, and a Glock trigger fires with 5 lbs of pressure - way to sensitive, IMHO, for use as a cop’s gun. My revolver has 3.5 lbs of trigger pull in single action, and I’ve fired it accidentally in SA (though downrange, which is why habit patterns count!)
They basically said that getting stopped by a cop while carrying might go very smooth, or might be very dangerous - and that it depended as much on the cop as the person stopped.
If I carry, it is usually with the gun entirely inside my front pocket, with the shirt covering it. If I felt like I was in a higher threat - broken down at night in a bad part of town - I’d pull it part way out, so just the grip showed. And tuck my shirt in, so it would then be open carry with a very fast draw.
AS far as I’m concerned (and IAW Arizona law), as soon as a Costco employee said no carry, Scott needed to leave ASAP. Period. When he didn’t, he started the problem. He definitely was a big part of what happened, and not in a good way.
But suppose I had been exiting Costco next to Scott, with no idea and suddenly a cop was saying something about handing over a gun, or stopping, or dropping, or most anything else...what would I do?
I think now I would raise my hands and force anyone who shot me to do so with every witness against them. If I was shot, I’d want the bullet hole to enter my armpit - as one of Scott’s did, BTW. But what would I have done last July, before I read about all this? I just don’t know...
Only the police person who made the upward shot needed to be 'dropped to the ground. You scum come on FR and play these word games all the time. You just get caught when someone challenges you because all you know how to do is deceive readers with your fabrications. Again, with more intensity, get stuffed you lying sack of acorns.
In typical lying democrat posing as a consewrvative style, tou accuse others of what you are trying to do. You're a lying deceitful poseur at FR who has been playing these word games on many threads (the birther threads come to mind first), all the time pretending to be something you're not.
As to floating something on a gun thread, yeah, somehow I trust you'll frame your deceit ins uch a way that unsuspecting rersponders will substantiate your deceits without realizing it. but just pick up a Kimber Carry, shove it into a belt-clip holster with a round chambered, then pull the hammer back and let it go before reaching 'cocked'. Then pick the holster up off the ground and take the mag out of the weapon in your hand, unless you want to fire the rest of the rounds ... and jack the slide back, fool, cause there's a round chambered and the hammer is cocked after you do the trick. Your lack of knowledge reveals a lot about you, liar.
Please continue your rants. Do you get your drugs from the same doctor that Scott used?
And do you realize how breathtakingly stupid you make your side out to be?
I may not agree with Moonman62, but Moonman62 makes rational arguments. Meanwhile, this 12 year poster on FR continues on in deep cover, trolling for Obama by saying the Las Vegas Police Department has some trigger happy cops.
“but just pick up a Kimber Carry, shove it into a belt-clip holster with a round chambered, then pull the hammer back and let it go before reaching ‘cocked’.”
No thanks. If I carry a Kimber, it will either be cocked and locked, or with an empty chamber - which is almost certainly the way Scott was carrying it. Even Scott didn’t take enough drugs to try to use a Kimber the way you advocate.
Bookmark
That's not what the article stated:
"Get on the ground!" "Drop your weapon!" and "Keep your hands up!"
What does all this have to do with the *actual* shooting event by law enforcement?
The article clearly stated the victim was given multiple, different commands, never pulled the weapon of it's holster and then he was subsequently shot to death.
The problem with you twisters is, if someone makes any concession you then pretend they agree completely with you and serve your agenda. The LV police screwed up and a man is dead who should still be alive. But their screw up is not the purposeful murder of a drugged man that you try to pursuade readers. There were several problems with the way this incident was handled. But your approach to inveigle your 'don't trust cops' agenda is getting too obvious, prick. [And that 'prick' is a little nettle, nothing more, a minor irritant to be dealt with as one sees fit.] As to your posing as some expert on fire arms, well, you're not what you pretend to be on FR even with your research to support your faux expertise.
Keep posting. You make my case look good...
Thread about what condition to carry a 1911 in:
http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=38215
Also see:
http://forum.m1911.org/archive/index.php/t-82682.html
The article clearly stated the victim was given multiple, different commands,
This is important: the article at the head of this thread is a post from August 30 on William Scott's blog, written either by William Scott, Erik's father, or Ross Goodman, the family's lawyer. In either case, it's understandable that the story it tells leads one to beleive that the LVMPD were the bad guys in this tragedy.
But since this was posted, we've had six days of testimony at the coroner's inquest, where we learned that things weren't quite as one-sided as Russ Goodman has been saying. He has long been hammering on the exact point you raise, doubtless because he's a pretty decent trial lawyer, and realizes it's his best bet at getting 7 jurors at a civil trial to agree that LVMPD is at least 51% in the wrong.
The problem is that the allegations raised in this article have been largely contradicted by the testimony and evidence at the inquest. We've heard from multiple witnesses that only officer Mosher was giving instructions to Erik Scott, which is corroborated by the 911 tape: we can hear Mosher, but no other officers.
So Goodman's down to this: Mosher's command "drop it" was understood by Scott to reach behind his back, grab his pistol, and point it at Mosher. To beleive this, you also have to assume that when Mosher said "drop it", he could see Scott's hands, and that they were empty. If Mosher uttered those words when he could not see Scott's hand hand because he was reaching behind his back, or if he appeared to be holding an object, even that slight ambiguity vanishes.
The rest of the blog post has turned out to contain a series of factual errors and omissions as well. That's fine: who expects a grieving father to look at both sides of this? But we are not so burdened. An informed opinion requires that we look at all the facts, not just the version the family has decided they need to believe, and Ross Goodman needs to propogate.
did that contribute to his reaction to the police? i don’t know.
from the info, he sounds troubled, but i don’t believe that this was a “good shoot”. IMHO
Thanks for the link. I’m not surprised, but it will now go to a civil case. Both sides will be heard there. If I lived in Vegas (and I’m really glad I live in southern Arizona instead!), I’d want some changes to the inquest procedures.
In terms of criminal standards, I think I agree with it being ‘justified’. The standard is if the shooter is reasonable in believing his life is in danger, understanding that there is only a second to decide. And while the shooter was NOT in danger, he had sufficient cause for fear to justify it, IMHO.
That said, I think it may play out different when it goes to civil court. There the case includes ‘Could a reasonable person have handled it differently with different results?’, and the family will have a much stronger chance with that.
the entire incident is one BIG SAD for everyone.
>>>8 - “Scott disobeyed any training he ever received as a soldier or as a CCW holder on how to disarm.”
>>False. I was told the same sort of thing, with it being optional on handing the gun over or letting the cop remove it.
>>Nor is a soldier trained on how to disarm. I spent 25 years in, and was trained to shoot, not to give up.
Indeed so; in fact the ‘request’/demand for a soldier to disarm can be grounds for “escalating the situation.”
{IE, chamber a round and reply, “Come and take it.”}
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.