Posted on 09/25/2010 8:11:33 AM PDT by redreno
The emotionless voice of Samantha Sterner told jurors on Friday that her boyfriend, 38-year-old Erik Scott, carried a gun with him everywhere he went and that the officer who shot him to death July 10 was “out of line.”
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
Sound likely? Nope, not to me either. And if Scott was trying to commit suicide, he wouldn't have pulled the holster...or if he accidentally did, he wouldn't be able to access the trigger, let alone rack the slide.
Based on the physical evidence - a Kimber 45 with hammer down in its holster on the ground - I just don't see how Scott could have been trying or even acting like he had a desire to shoot the cops.
I don't like how some folks here are commenting on the appearance of the Officer Mosher. From the story it appears that he is a Marine (retired or Reserve or what I don't know) and also an advocate of concealed carry and the 2nd Amendment.
It also appears that there was no video recording in Costco that day. Why it has taken this long for this to come out is beyond me.
The recommended way to carry a 1911 is condition 3, one in the tube, hammer cocked and safety on. I don’t know if that’s how this one was but from the fact that it was in the holster makes me think that he was in the process of disarming according to police commands.
Cocked and locked is pretty normal for carry, I believe. This one isn’t cocked, so it probably had an empty chamber and required Scott to rack the slide to shoot. It is rare for someone to carry a 1911 with the hammer down and a round in the chamber. I think. Like I said, I have revolvers...
Your best bet is to Google Erik Scott and start reading the links. His dad has a blog, the Las Vegas Sun has a running blog of the coroner's inquest, and YouTube has video.
Then keep the facts to yourself because no one here is interested.
You are correct that it is not advised to carry with one in the pipe and hammer down with a 1911.
That's pretty funny considering that at least 3 of us have said we have officers in our families. Btw, they also question the Vegas scenario.
Are they paranoid? Trigger happy? Lacked training?
Don't know....
Something that I read in the last 2 days said the officers were using hollow points. Is that a normal thing?
Glad you got a chuckle out of it. Frankly I feel nothing but pity.
You don’t discuss anything, just insult. Interesting.
And then they shot him again, to make sure he was dead.
This was just a bad shoot...
You posted to me. I didn’t to you. If you don’t like what I typed, stop posting to me.
Look, I’ll try once to reach you. It isn’t about this case. It is about how you get information and think about it. If you ever wondered why Liberals are so screwed up about stuff, it is because they don’t know how to reason. “Conservatives” aren’t immune. Threads like this are an example. People started with an opinion and nothing will turn them from it. They will demonize anything that impinges on that view and anyone that holds it.
I posted originally to the person who seemed new to the topic. I told him to not follow the people here who aren’t remotely interested in the objective truth (as opposed to the relative or subjective truth). I told him to go to link sources such as the paper that is running a blog of the inquest...sorry Kangaroo Court, and Erik Scott’s father’s blog.
Why? Because those sources provide information. Is the information there accurate? I don’t know. I’ve bookmarked the father’s site and you know his view. I’ve follwed the paper’s summary of the Inquest. I’ve watched the YouTube videos that are posted from the local media. Because, I want to know the FACTS if I can get them.
It doesn’t have to be about this topic. It could be about health care. It could be about Obama. It could be about the tax cuts. It could be about anything. But unless you actually evaluate the information(What’s the source? Can it be corroborated? Is it fact or someone’s opinion? Is the person honest? Did they make a mistake? How much is known and how much is still unknown? What are they leaving out? What questions didn’t they ask?) then you simply are a potential walking victim of propaganda. It doesn’t matter whose propaganda, because you will believe what the last person tells you.
It is why political entities dump all their millions into ads just before the elections. They know that people don’t think and will act like lemmings on their last impression.
Yes, it is why I feel pity. Maybe you get it, maybe you don’t. Good luck.
Here's a link to his father's blog.
Yes. That's how it works on a DISCUSSION forum.
It is about how you get information and think about it.
You have no idea how i do that. None.
I’ve follwed the paper’s summary of the Inquest.
Have you spoken with Vegas and Nevada freepers about it? I have. There's nothing like "boots on the ground" info. And the media aren't so honest. Must be why FR has a "Dinosaur Media Deathwatch".
Yes, it is why I feel pity. Maybe you get it, maybe you don’t. Good luck.
Oh, I get it. And I apparently have more info than you. To get a full picture, you HAVE to read what the locals say. In the early threads, lots of local freepers discussed the police force. And I read the Comments section of the news articles. It was truly eye opening.
I sure feel privileged to have someone come onto a thread and tell us all how to FReep. It’s so refreshing.
Oh, I forgot. “/s”
According to the article:
“Officer William Mosher, the first of three officers who fired shots at Scott and the first to pull his trigger, was again on the witness stand Friday to answer questions from interested parties. “
...
“But he said that given the circumstances — that Scott had raised a weapon at him — he had no choice but to respond with deadly force.”
...
“In the background of a call to 911 played for the jury, Mosher can be heard yelling, “Put your hands where I can see them now. Drop it! Get on the ground! Get on the ground!””
My opinion:
From the 911 tape played in the courtroom indicates that Officer Mosher could not see Erik Scott’s hands {”Put your hands where I can see them now.”). Officer Mosher testified “given the circumstances — that Scott had raised a weapon at him — he had no choice but to respond with deadly force.”
From the 911 tape, it is apparent that Scott had the weapon in his hand when the officer could see his hands, because the officer, after ordering Scott to “Put your hands where I can see them” immediately yells “Drop it!”.
From the pictures at the link, the weapon was in its holster. At least one of the officers was close enough to touch Scott, so he must have been close enough to see whether the weapon was holstered. Was the officer who touched Scott one of the three who shot him?
Finally, the article states “The shooting wouldn’t have happened, he said, if Scott had complied with the commands issued by police to get on the ground.”
Scott’s hands were not visible to the officer. Officer requests Scott show his hands. Scott apparently complies, because the officer can now see something in his hands. Officer requests Scott drop what is in his hands. Officer also requests Scott get on ground.
So Scott complied with the first request. Officer states that he would not have been shot had he complied with the third request (”Get on the ground”). This at least implies that Scott complied with the request to drop the weapon.
Strangely, the officer does NOT state that he was shot because he refused to drop the weapon, but that he was shot because he refused to get down on the ground.
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.