Posted on 07/13/2010 3:47:06 AM PDT by marktwain
Edited on 07/13/2010 4:51:40 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at fox5vegas.com ...
It was dark?
This story stinks to high heaven. I am normally on the side of the police, but this is an outrage.
But the person you used as an example was not a murder suspect, but yet in your mind he was, see the difference?
And armed man damaging store property
__________________
LMAO! You moron, he was not damaging store property.
Ultimately the responsibility is the incompetent, possibly
lusting-for-SWAT-glory LVPDs. But the dismal GFW COSTCO
staff person and mgmt, not to mention some of those present
need to really start thinking about guns, citizens, hostile
shooters, etc. Dismaying to learn that those in NV don’t
understand that the RKBA, yes, in large retail establishments
protects them rather than threatens them.
You're right. The reports do sound excessively weird. That almost always means we are missing some important information with which we might be able to better understand the situation. For a conspiracy to be the explanation you would have to have three police officers with the personalities of serial killers that somehow trust each other and work together. While nothing is impossible, that comes awfully close.
Another slightly less impossible alternative is that one of the officers took the lead and intentionally killed the guy and the other officers followed his lead. They either couldn't see clearly, or stress of the situation gave them tunnel vision and combined with the anxiety of the situation, they followed the one officer's lead.
A more likely situation is incompetence. The simplest answer is usually the correct one. They were told the guy had a gun, and under the stress of the situation one or more of them saw what wasn't there.
As for being untrained... you would be justifiably appalled to know the general level of competency of a lot of officers concerning hand guns. And since most officers never actually face an armed criminal it is hard to know how they will react when it happens, or when they think it happens.
For a conspiracy to have occurred the three would have been willing to work together to randomly commit a murder in plain view of the public and in plain view of security cameras without planning out the details or even having any kind of idea of who they might kill. A conspiracy that plans to not plan? Your suggestion of premeditation boggles the imagination.
Think civil trial for the GFW clerk and COSTCO.
There appears to be updated witness reports at the original link. Some witnesses now saying they saw him reach for it. Confusing!
http://www.lvrj.com/news/man-did-not-pull-gun-on-police-at-costco—lawyer-says-98279344.html
If Mayberry still looks the same then Andy’s got a long life, anything else the bookmakers can make odds on.
Saturday's shooting was not the first for Mosher, who in April 2006 was one of two officers who shot and killed a suspect in a car.At a coroner's inquest, officers Mosher and John Jessie Wiggins testified they feared for Wiggins' life when they opened fire on Aaron Jones at the Sunset Breeze apartments in the southwest valley. Both officers fired after Jones, a suspect in a home burglary, backed up his car and hit Wiggins in an attempt to escape.
//one officer ordered Scott to disarm while the other officers shot him as he attempted to disarm, thinking that he was going to shoot at them//
probably what happened
Yeah. No medals for restraint for these cops, eh?
I have no useful opinion on whether or not COSTCO mgmt.
and this clerk should be liable criminally, but a civil
trial seems in order.
They didn’t call the cops for anything other than “a man
with a gun” i.e. they couldn’t distinguish between legal
carry and a disruptive threat. That they should know.
Are you kidding me? I have no doubt that the survivors of the victim will be suing everyone in sight.
Read the account's dimwit.
Sure. Go to your local Sam's Club, bust open a 36 pack of Coke, scatter the cans around, then leave and let the staff clean up after you. That qualifies as a jerk in most cases. But for you it would be par for the course.
1. The original Tueller article. What does it contain? A completely anecdotal guesstimation in a trade magazine based on the author's experiences. It doesn't even pretend to be scientific, and most of the article is devoted to its real purpose: discussing how officers can improve their response time and better defend themselves.
2. Lewinski's website. First a little bit about Lewinski - he's a notorious pro-police shill who gets paid $425 an hour to serve as an "expert witness" for hire in defense of cops facing criminal prosecution for excessive force, and rakes in over $100,000 a year giving testimony to help get cops off the hook. He is best known for developing an absurd pseudo-scientific theory to explain away cases where police shoot somebody in the back on the specious claim that they were probably looking backward and shooting while running away.
Lewinski's academic credentials are highly suspect, to put it mildly. His "doctorate" is in "police psychology," a pseudo-scientific field that was invented by law enforcement agencies themselves and wasn't even recognized as a legitimate specialization by the APA until it granted a "trial period" in 2008 after intense lobbying from law enforcement. Equally telling, he isn't even a real Ph.D. in the normal sense. He got his "degree" from the Union Institute - a degree mill in Cincinnati that grants "Ph.Ds" over the internet. The Union Institute does not even have accreditation to grant degrees in psychology. It also has a long history of legal and accreditation trouble over granting unaccredited Ph.D's that misrepresent their field.
3. Moving on to Lewinski's research, it's junk science and nothing more. The "Forced Science Institute" is his own self-funded organization, which also serves as an in-house publisher for his stuff and which is not subjected to the rigors of the scientific peer review process. He has a long history of being on the losing side of excessive force lawsuits, and offering testimony well outside his own highly questionable "expertise" - for example medical forensics, a field in which he has absolutely no training. Nor does he have any academic credentials that would allow him to properly analyze human biomechanics as his "high speed camera" research purports to do. Contrary to his tendency to portray himself as "groundbreaking," this type of research is something kinesiologists and other fields that specialize in biomechanics perfected decades ago...through established and peer-reviewed scientific standards, in which Lewinski has absolutely ZERO training. His research in this area is of little more value than if it was conducted by a random guy on the street with a stopwatch and a camcorder from Wal-Mart - to the point that he likely doesn't even know what he's looking at or how to properly interpret human muscle reactions.
So where does that leave us? Back where we originally started: the Tueller Drill is junk science, and your "expert" Lewinski only proves that further.
“Now, they look for the easy target for revenue so they can keep their job”
You just described the police in Central Texas to a “T”.
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.
That is indeed correct. The problem is that most cops who read Tueller nonetheless treat it that way, yourself included in your earlier post where you cited it to justify an absurdly paranoid prioritizing of "officer safety" at the expense of the safety of others. Thank you for illustrating my point though.
Law enforcement certification doesn't come from "ITT Tech" and the trend is to require a college degree for law enforcement work
No. Those ITT Tech-style internet schools offer "criminal justice" programs that are tailored to cops who need a couple hours of college credit for promotion. As to the requirement of a college degree, simply look at the hiring websites of just about any given random police department in the United States. Standard entry level qualifications to become a cop:
- High school diploma or GED
- Have no felony convictions
- Minimum age somewhere in the 18-21 range
- Valid driver's license
- Be able to pass a VERY minimal physical fitness test
- Affirmative Action bonus points for being a minority or other protected class
Now it is true that promotions are usually contingent upon completing some college credits, and that is where ITT Tech comes into play. But an entry level cop is no more qualified than an entry level burger flipper.
There are to many contradictory laws if you start to think about it, so its best not to.
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.