[dragnet2]

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.

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.

[absalom01]

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,

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.