I bet this guy get's that all the time.
Posted on 09/24/2010 4:21:28 PM PDT by redreno
I agree. Just as driving under the influence is stupid, so is carrying a firearm under the influence; and obviously, potentially fatal!
Huh? Was Erik left or right handed and why that does it matter when the officer told him to drop it?" If YOU don't know the answers to those questions, you can't make a judgement. Military training/police training teaches that you remove a weapon voluntariyl when ordered with YOUR left hand if you're right-handed, and your RIGHT HAND if you're left-handed. The weapon is usually holstered in the handed-position, but not if cross-handed-drawn.
From lvmp10 “Fact: Erik Scott complied with Mosher’s instructions. He put his hands up. He told the cop he had a gun. He was told to drop it. He attempted to comply and in the process of doing so was shot to death.
WRONG. He put up his hands; yes, but you do NOT KNOW IF HE THEN REACHED FOR THE GUN TO DRAW AND SHOOT, ORwent to surrender the weapon.
Two witnesses in a row testify that the weapon Scott was holding at the time he was shot wasn’t even accessible for fire, as it was fully enclosed in a “gun rug.”
LOL...you don't know much about holsters, I guess. A soft covered holster can be fired easily without removal from the holster at all. Likewise, just because he couldn't outdraw the officers gun which was already beaded on him, you ASSUME he never "drew the weapon". He couldn't "draw the weapon" quick enough, in this case, but the testimony also stated that the gun and holster slid 4 feet on the pavement towards the officer, and a reasonable inference can be drawn that it was in forward motion BECAUSE HIS HAND WAS IN A MOTION TO DRAW AND FIRE AT THE OFFICER WHEN HE WAS SHOT.
I hope you don't serve on a jury, where you try to hang every officer that is forced to react instantly to an armed suspect who is drunk, stoned, or ornery.
I bet this guy get's that all the time.
“A soft covered holster can be fired easily without removal from the holster at all.”
Not true. I have the holster and a S&W Model 60...tried it about an hour ago. Doesn’t work. Not totally impossible, but not easy.
He was going to do one of two things, shoot a, or more police officers, or not.
Motive? I’d say there was more motive not to shoot, then to shoot, what with being outnumbered, drunk/drugs, not having or expecting anything towards the police. Further, the gun was in its holster, supposedly a good one, so that is more towards the physical evidence that he was disarming, in his mind, clouded as it was.
He didn’t rob the place. He wasn’t a criminal, or a real dirty biker, or frankly a hip hop minority. He just seemed to be carrying and drunk/drugs.
He didn’t raise the gun, point the gun. He didn’t have any reason, nor say anything about harming anyone, or the police.
It seemed to me a rigid, by the book, not too thinking, bureaucratic shooting. It seems the second and third shots were reactive, and with out cause.
I’d describe the shooting as a politically correct. Imagine if there was an armed guard at Costco, or you in the store and armed. Would you have shot the guy? He’s carrying, with a girlfriend, stumbling around and leaves.
So, basically he was shot for not well enough, or fast enough, or correctly obeying. That was his crime.
It’s odd that the police who are so hands/gun orientated during/after a shooting, don’t notice the hands empty and don’t just walk up to the guy, and his shopping cart, and girlfriend, especially when there are multiple officers.
Oh well, no doubt LVPD is a crazy, rough, weird, bad crime place. And the guy was living in his do you know I went to West Point delusion. Bad intersects, karma, chemistry.
No tapes, the video machine was inop at the time. The cop will skate on this one, his second human killing. More will die at his hands.
Fat cop tells Scott to drop his gun, he reached for it and was shot seven times, including five times in the back.
“...but the testimony also stated that the gun and holster slid 4 feet on the pavement towards the officer, and a reasonable inference can be drawn that it was in forward motion BECAUSE HIS HAND WAS IN A MOTION TO DRAW AND FIRE AT THE OFFICER WHEN HE WAS SHOT.”
According to the testimony I’ve read about, it happened after Scott fell, not while he was being shot. That would have more to do with Scott’s fall than a draw to fire.
I have watched much of the inquest. Your description is exactly on target. I would only add that Mosher, the fat cop will kill again given the chance. He is a walking executioner.
I’ve worked places that liability issues and the manager had plans to ‘fail’ the recordings if it would work to the house’s advantage.
The gun was holstered. And what does it matter what hand he used?
“Military training/police training teaches that you remove a weapon voluntariyl when ordered with YOUR left hand if you’re right-handed, and your RIGHT HAND if you’re left-handed.”
I did 25 years in the military - ok, the USAF - and I never heard that. Can you cite a source? Because if I tried to remove that holster from the 3:30 position with my left hand, I could not do it. Not possible.
This is the eyewitness testimony of one Christopher Villareale, a CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT HOLDER. Powerful in my opinion.
“Christopher Villareale was shopping at Costco the day of the shooting and also is a concealed weapon permit holder.
Villareale said he was one of the last people to leave the store and wasn’t far from Scott when he was shot.
He testified that an officer yelled at Scott to get on the ground, “And Mr. Scott is just standing there not doing anything.”
Scott then lifted his shirt with his left hand and someone yelled “no, no,” Villareale said.
Scott then pulled his right arm forward with a gun in his hand, he said.
Villareale said it appeared to him that Scott was holding the gun by the handle, but he couldn’t tell if the gun was in a holster since the gun was black.
The officer shot Scott, who turned, dropped the gun, was shot again, then fell to the ground.
Scott’s girlfriend yelled before the shooting that Scott was in the military, and once shots were fired, she became hysterical, Villareale said.
Villareale said he was involved in an incident previously in which he had to pull a gun on somebody, then deal with police when they arrived, so he has safely disarmed with a police officer present.
But Scott didn’t respond in a similar and appropriate way, he said.
“He was acting in a way that I would think was not consistent with what would be the appropriate way to act in that situation,” Villareale said.
He said he knew the officer thought someone could be harmed during the situation.
“I thought he did the right thing shooting him,” Villareale said.
When asked during a question from an interested party, Villareale said it didn’t look like Scott was going to hand the gun to the police, but he also didn’t point the gun at the officer.
When shown a photo of the gun on the ground outside the store, Villareale said it was the same gun that Scott dropped.”
What strikes you as powerful about that?
Understand my interpretation of the response I was addressing was a supposed "facts" summation, whereas all the facts were interepreted to reach his own conclusion of events.
Until ALL testimony is in, from BOTH sides, then there's no way to draw a conclusion on the "facts", as evidence has not been presented in its entirety.
On the issue of firing from a holster without removal of the weapon; yes, there ARE some holsters that are soft and it's doable (but not likely nor reasonable), as you get into the ATF rules on what is an AOW, but it's not practicle. The point being that I don't know what kind of holster it was (it could have been homemade, for all I know), but you don't know if the deceased made a move quickly toward the weapon, or the officer over-reacted. Based on some testimony that included stumbling, bottles and cartons being torn open, etc., you cannot know the mindset or intentions of the deceased, and his girlfriend CERTAINLY has her own interpretation which will be biased in favor of the boyfriend. I just don't yet have ALL the testimony and evidence to make a judgement, but some already have the hangman's noose ready for the cop, regardless of what comes in the trial.
I am not judging one way or the other; just cautioning all to withold judgement to the end of the case.
You probably are correct in that there may have been simple over-reaction, but then, on the other hand, you do not KNOW if the move toward the gun was overt and quick, or calculated, or non-threatinging. Drunk and disorderly can sometimes fool the best and result in a few rounds being squeezed off before you know it, whereas a rational person would not make that move.
“WRONG. He put up his hands; yes, but you do NOT KNOW IF HE THEN REACHED FOR THE GUN TO DRAW AND SHOOT, ORwent to surrender the weapon.”
Are you on drugs? Scary delusional.
The officer told him to drop it. If he didn’t want him to disarm or go near his gun he shouldn’t have given the order. Right? Moron.
Others yelling different conflicting orders all at the same time and he’s supposed to instantly follow the correct order in 3 tenths of a second or he’s dead. As the girlfriend said, they would have shot him no matter what he did.
The girlfriend’s account:
“In a recorded interview, Scott’s girlfriend, Samantha Sterner, describes what happened at Costco on July 10.
Sterner said she saw Scott talking to a store employee, but “he was not irritated. The Costco employee did not seem irritated. Neither one of them was hostile.”
She said neither one of them threw anything in the store. Scott went to get another shopping cart, then an employee told her to evacuate, she said.
Scott returned and they agreed to walk out to the car and drop off the gun. She said while they were walking out of the store, they saw a police officer.
“He immediately draws his weapon, immediately, without hesitation,” Sterner said in the recording.
The officers told Scott to get on the ground, she said. Scott put his hands above his head, tried to tell the officer he was going to disarm and then slowly moved his right hand down to the gun, Sterner said.
Sterner said she kept screaming at the officer: “’Do not shoot, he’s a concealed weapons holder, he’s a military officer, do not shoot.’”
“I said it a million times,” she said.
She said the officer shot Scott once, then Scott started to fall back before the officer shot him twice more. She said she didn’t see any other officers fire.
Sterner said in the recording she thinks the officer would have fired no matter what Scott did.
“He was extremely aggressive from the get-go,” she said. “I just think this officer was out of line.”
Sterner also said Scott never held the gun by the handle and it never came out of the holster, but he did hold the front of the gun to try to disarm.
According to the LV Sun, none of the witnesses stated that Scott was ordered to reach for his pistol. We are told that officer Mosher (and only that one officer) is heard on the 911 recording first ordering Scott to show his hands. Witnesses confirm this. He is then heard saying "drop it!", not, "Hand me the gun", or any other words to that effect. Today's witnesses also state that Scott was not complying with the order to show his hands, did reach for the pistol, did produce it, and did point it directly at Mosher, and also recall hearing Mosher yell at Scott not to touch it.
The family lawyer has contended that the words "drop it" were a command to reach for the pistol in order to surrender it to Mosher, but that statement is contradicted by today's testimony.
Per the witnesses, the sequence was "show your hands": no reaction from Scott. Scott then reaches for pistol, Mosher yells "Drop it!". Scott points pistol, in (what later turns out to be in what looks like an Uncle Mike's IWB holster) at Mosher, who then opens fire. Unclear is when the command "get on the ground!" is given, at least from the newspaper account.
There's more testimony tomorrow.
Something tells me the reason the video doesn’t exist is because it tells a totally different story.
LOL
I did 4 years in the USAF (2 on Flight Crew-551st TAC), and attended Survival School down at Tyndall AFB. During the weapons training, (Colt 45ACP), I clearly recall the Instructor giving holy Hell to a "student" who was asked to hand over his weapon. It was holstered on his right hip.
The CMSGT yelled "Surrender your weapon!", and the guy reached down to take it out and was told "YOU DON'T SURRENDER YOUR WEAPON WITH THAT HAND; USE YOUR OPPOSITE HAND OR I'LL ASSUME YOU'RE DRAWING DOWN ON ME..."
That's the only source I can attribute it to, but I do remember hearing that, and all the weapons were loaded there on the range at that time.
Contrary to popular belief here, I wasn't in the military when the standard issue was the muzzle-loader.
You spewed, “Are you on drugs? Scary delusional.” So we can ask, do you want to discuss the issues or sling insults and bluster at posters until you and a handful of agenda driven posters are all that’s left on the thread?
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.