Officers In Costco Shooting Identified (NV)

fox5vegas.com ^ | 12 July, 2010 | NA

[marktwain]

LAS VEGAS -- Las Vegas Metro police on Monday identified the three officers who shot and killed an armed man outside a Costco store in Summerlin.

They are Officer William Mosher, 38, a five-year veteran of the department, Officer Joshua Stark, 28, who has been with the department since September 2008, and Officer Thomas Mendiola, 23, who joined the department in March 2009.

[mojitojoe]

BINGO!

[EternalVigilance]

If someone is in my sights, I assure you that my reaction time would be more than sufficient to differentiate between a man removing a holstered weapon from his belt and a man who was taking that weapon out of that holster. And I’m not a trained LEO.

And the weight in a situation where the man in my sights is in a crowd of innocent bystanders would sway heavily towards not pulling the trigger until I’m positive he is really a threat to anyone.

[mojitojoe]

Don’t waste your time on him, just ask him, he’s always right. He’s also a liberal.

[Candor7]

Yes, it is the same here.Most officers are members of gun clubs so they can get range discounts on bulk purchases of ammo,accessories and firearms.We get along well, and in a pinch, they would call us for help, and we would be there.

There is something definitely wrong with this situation in Nevada.Some kinnd of prearrangement of use of deadly force on the slightest perceptive provocation, if the account on this thread is true. I can see one guy makinng a istake, but all three? And then a second volley after he was down? Hey, this isn't Afghanistan, or is it?

I usually side with the police on these issues, having severed myself, but something is very wrong here,either the account is not true, or these guys were prepared to kill a licensed concealed carry person ahead of time.

[CA Conservative]

“At the time, I had no idea the man was innocent. I knew that he was wanted for questioning in a murder.”

True, but the fact that you have no proof of his guilt should make you less likely to react precipitously, not more likely. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

“From the, “I’d rather have dead cops than dead criminals division of FR.””

No, from the “I’d rather have an armed police officer take the risk than have an unarmed innocent person killed” division.

“Since you read my post, you know that at the time of the stop I had no reason to believe that the person was innocent.”

But you had no proof of his guilt, or even any proof that the person in the car was the person you were seeking. As you said, it was dark, and you were going by the fact that the car belonged to the person you were seeking. What if the driver were a son, a brother, a friend? In other words, there was enough uncertainty to expect that you, a trained and armed law enforcement officer would be reasonably sure of any threat to your safety existed before possibly killing an innocent person.

“That is part of the job, and if you don’t like it or can’t accept it, find another line of work.”

“I did.”

From the sounds of it, the citizens in your jurisdiction should heave a big sigh of relief for that mercy.

[EternalVigilance]

You prefer dead cops to dead criminals, just like all of the Losertarians that have chimed in on this thread.

I think you need to check your premises. This man was not a criminal. He was a West Pointer, a veteran, and an upstanding citizen of his community.

One other thing: I'm most certainly not a libertarian, and I am far from convinced this was a righteous shooting.

You don't have to be a libertarian to oppose law enforcement officers willy-nilly gunning citizens down in the street.

[KTM rider]

"wait and see" is what we'll do allright.

wait and see the officers get off the hook

LV Metro has a loooong LONG history of unwarranted police shootings that are unjustified , covered up and not prosecuted. All you have to do is a google search

evidently the LV Metro has been committing murder for years.

just about a month ago they shot an unarmed man in his moms house for selling pot, no struggle, no resisting they just shoot anyone who does not comply instantly to unclear demands , or does comply with demands as in this case or if a LV metro cop sees a gun or hears there is a gun they shoot on sight knowing they will be absolved of guilt

[freedomwarrior998]

Note the operative word - they "run" the drill, as in train their personnel to react around their 21 foot rule, already assuming that it is unquestionable "truth" even though it was really just a single cop's guesstimation that he used as a rule of thumb on the job. Meanwhile it remains the case that there's never been an independent scientific demonstration of the even the Tueller drill's most basic premises - No statistical justification for 21 feet as opposed to 25 or 17 or anything else. No representative sampling of fitness in the general population to tell if it takes the "average" knife guy 1 second or 3 seconds or 10 seconds to move. No controlled or replicable measurement of human reaction times, save simply running the drill with cops while already taking its underlying claims for granted. In short it's nothing more than anecdotal guesswork. That observation is no matter of my anonymity or expertise (of which I choose not to volunteer or advertise though I am thoroughly confident that it well exceeds the typical GED-toting cop with a few hours at the academy and a "criminal justice" certification from ITT Tech). It's a simple and undisputed fact about the Tueller drill: it is NOT scientific. So treat it and use it as the rule of thumb that it is and that it was originally written by Officer Tueller to be. But don't try to pass it off as something it is not just so you can duck behind it to justify violent and reckless behavior that costs other human lives.

You stepped in it, just as I knew you would. Research into the Tueller drill has been conducted. Since you appear to be completely ignorant, I'll help you along. The The original Tueller article appeared in SWAT magazine in 1983. Numerous other individuals HAVE conducted research into Tueller's premise, and by in large vindicated his point, in fact, many suggest that 21 feet is probably too close.

The research done by Dr. Lewinski used high-speed camera footage, and documented numerous officers and suspects of varying degrees of experience and athleticism. Lewinski documented average response and reaction times, as well as the time that it takes for the suspect to cover a set distance.

You can read about his work here:

http://www.forcescience.org/

Secondly, Tueller never suggested that his work was a "rule", nor did he ever say that one is automatically justified in shooting someone holding a knife when they are standing 21 feet. I never said that either. You are committing a very elementary internet debating fallacy called "creating a straw man." It's pretty laughable considering your inability to verify that additional research into Tueller's premise has been conducted by a variety of individuals.

(BTW: Law enforcement certification doesn't come from "ITT Tech" and the trend is to require a college degree for law enforcement work, so you merely demonstrate your ignorance yet again.)

[Senator Pardek]

Shoot a cop, save a civilian. Until the day comes where I can pull over a pig for no reason, point a gun its face, and have my cronies lie about it and the lies be accepted in court because I’m also a pig....

[conimbricenses]

It seems to depend on the state and the geography. As a general rule from what I’ve seen, big city and college town cops are the most hostile to concealed carry. Sometimes it also varies based on rank - e.g. the brass support it while the patrol officers don’t, or vice versa. But it’s also generally the case that cops are not very strong defenders of the 2nd amendment, and many are actually very hostile having the “only we should be allowed to own guns” mentality. That mentality played no small part in what happened at Virginia Tech and several other similar incidents.

[KTM rider]

The ROE's are far more strict for our troops in Afghanistan than for the LV Metro

[GlockThe Vote]

don’t get me started with some of the stories I have a cops brutalizing the public. Its horrific some of the garbage they get away with.

[freedomwarrior998]

Are your black boots cutting off the circulation to your head? Before calling someone a liar you should at least ask for clarification. It was the same study that found the majority of cops admitted to lying to cover up the “improper conduct” of fellow officers.

Wow, Ad hominem and lying in the same post. Want to try again? What was your original statement? Why does it need "clarification?"

[investigateworld]

In places where the issuance of CCW’s has been a cash cow for the department in past years (eg, cities in SoCal, the northeast, etc) for their connected “friends” and “important people,” they hate shall-issue CCW’s because it takes away the ability of the chief or sheriff to say “Suuuuuure.... I’ll give a CCW.... I’m in need of funds for my re-election tho....” this has been an issue in some California counties in the 90’s.

Correct. The minimum 'fee' in the county I worked at/for was about $5,000.

Really cheap when one compares that in neighboring LA County , they were not available at any price.

[driftdiver]

It needs clarification for stupid jack booted thugs. Nobody else has asked about my post as they apparently understood it.

I know people like you hate it when the truth comes out.

[mojitojoe]

A witness said he’d broken open a package of sports drinks and was seeing how many could fit into a backpack. If true then they were the actions of a jerk but not a berserk person
______________
Oh please, that doesn’t even mean he was a jerk. Maybe he was buying the sports drinks and was looking for a backpack to purchase. Maybe he was trying to see which back pack would hold them so he would know which one to buy. There is NOTHING wrong with that.

[Grunthor]

We weren’t talking about the victim in this case, but thanks all the same.

[valkyry1]

Obviously you were trigger happy with no qualms about it.

[valkyry1]

She should be charged then, there is a crime there.