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...