The doctor was illegally writing prescriptions on demand to Scott without actually seeing him as a patient as a law abiding doctor would, therefore the article isn't being contradictory.
All of which is irrelevant to the questions, “Did the police act responsibly in shooting Scott 7 times? Did they feel threatened based on the facts or what they expected (I obviously believe #2)? Did they shoot him on the ground? And were there better ways to handle the situation?”
Relevancy should be determined by the laws of Nevada, not your lawyerly questions. Scott's illegal drug use should be considered along with the testimony about Scott's behavior. Scott was carrying his weapon illegally under the influence of drugs. He held up his hand to a Costco employee's head as if it was a gun. He told another employee he was a Green Beret when he never was. Another employee was told by Scott that he was "messed up". Scott immediately went for his gun when he was first contacted by the police. 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. From the information Mosher received from his dispatcher, he believed Scott was armed, under the influence of drugs, and threatening. Scott disobeyed any training he ever received as a soldier or as a CCW holder on how to disarm.
The only way the cops could have handled the situation better was with hindsight. The best outcome would have been if Scott was in a detox center or a hospital where he belonged.
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.
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.