Posted on 10/05/2010 6:01:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
And you heard this from his doctor? His doctor went to the media and divulged information from a client-patient relationship?
Rush wasn't mixing six times the normally lethal dose of morphine with one times the normally lethal dose of Xanax.
How do you know Mr. Scott was? Are you his doctor?
Just because the POLICE put this in the media via the INQUEST does not mean it is in any way true. Remember, they know this was a bad kill, and they have to cover their behinds.
What doctor would and allow to continue the massive amounts of morphine the LVPD is CLAIMING he took ????
Is that the same 'doctor' who now is claiming Scott wanted the morphine for depression?
Fine. I'll put you in the "it was a conspiracy" column.
Another interesting point that you brought up:
We NEVER heard about the state of Erik's weapon during the inquest. Was there a round in the chamber, or did he have to rack it to load the piece? The assistant DA was supremely disinterested in such trivialities...
Moonman62 & his ilk like to pretend that the mere proximity of Erik's holstered gun to Erik was a sort of "death ray emanation" that imperiled the circular firing squad of the panicking police officers.
Was there a round in the chamber, or not?
It's a yes or no question, BTW...
If, as suspected, the cameras were not 'malfunctioning' at the time of the incident, but were tampered with after the fact to destroy evidence, then the family sure as hell has grounds to sue Costco.
Thanks.
So.... are you saying that when a police department (and this one in particular) has what is obviously a 'bad kill', that they wouldn't do everything in their power to cover it up?
I do not believe there was any kind of 'conspiracy' to kill Mr. Scott. I do believe, and have seen evidence of the fact that they are doing everything possible to COVER IT UP.
If you want to say that those who see a COVERUP in progress are believers in a CONSPIRACY, I guess you are correct.
Are you correct?
REAR WAISTBAND?
According to police, he had two guns. Where was the other one?
According to witnesses, the gun in the zippered holster was in his front waistband, and that is what he reached for. According to police he had a gun in his rear waistband that the EMT's found later.
So.. did he have two guns? According to your statement, he must not have had two guns, if he reached for the ONLY gun and it was in his rear waistband.
(time to test your sense of humor)
You know what the difference would have been if Scott hadn’t reached for his gun and had just immediately prostrated himself on the pavement ?
.
.
.
(wait for it)
.
.
.
All seven bullets would have been in the back.
Dirty cops everywhere........Good cops everywhere. Will be interesting to see what happens in this case.
Stay safe !
BTW, I have no problem with you defending police in general, or even the LVPD officers in this incident.
Without contrary opinion and argument, this wouldn’t be much of a debate, and the truth would lose more than it would gain.
I appreciate you sticking to your guns. (pun not intentional)
Mosher complied with the laws of Nevada and his training based on the information he had. Mosher identified [ a random guy in a chaotic crowd]
the person who was known to him to be armed, under the influence of drugs, and threatening [he had NO knowledge of the 'armed', nor did he observe scott for any length of time to determine 'high' or threatening']
. He gave the person a chance to comply with verbal commands [all of what, 1-2 seconds ???]
. The person didn't comply, but went for his gun and pointed at Mosher [says what percentage of witnesses ???]. Mosher fired at the center of mass, which reduces the chances that a bystander will be hurt [point blank, arms length as he had just touched scott].
The other officers also fired at the center of mass until the threat was ended [reflexive 'thin bloo line BS]...
(sometimes the suspect has another weapon). The threat was ended and no bystanders were hurt [By the Grace of God !!!]. The jury at the inquest made a unanimous decision (though unanimity was not required) in less than two hours that the shooting was justified.
LVPD still battin 1.000% since '76...maybe they should put that on their cars, swat vans, helos etc...
You mean like the 'single bullet theory' bullet that magically passed through Senator Connelly, changed directions several times, and then went through Kennedy's head ?
I doubt it. But the MILITARY does.
And Offier Mosher (sp?) is a MARINE.
Maybe his military training 'instincts' were the cause of this kill, and not his 'police training'.
I am not disparaging the Military, nor the Marines, just acknowledging the reality and power of years of 'training' , and how it becomes built in instinct.
Costco employees and some customers testified that he had the holstered gun in his rear waistband. (reference this article) A detective testified that the second gun was found in one of his front pockets while he was being transported to the hospital.
I'm interested that the police receive due process like anybody else, and that people don't jump to conclusions based on prejudice, or incorrect information.
>BTW, what did you do about those cops?
Not much I could do as I wasn’t at the place when they showed up; had I been the one reporting their actions (instead of the neighbor) it would have been hearsay... and considering my complaint that would make me quite the hypocrite.
>I stand by my statement. Much of the anti-cop stuff on this board amounts to bigotry, plain and simple.
Considering the definition of bigot (a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion) you may be correct; though I know that in my case I am tolerant of other’s opinion of cops [even is I am willing to voice my differing opinion].
The main dangers I see about police [and in general their current SOP/mentality] are:
1 — The willingness to enforce illegitimate laws. (Such as the gun-laws previously mentioned.)
2 — The willingness to act upon unverified information. (As my experience clearly shows.)
3 — The willingness to enforce laws arbitrarily. (As the practice of not ticketing fellow-policemen for the ‘minor’ traffic violations.)
In a worst-case-scenario, say massive civil-unrest or civil-war, these three factors could combine to make the police into something *very* similar to the standing-armies the founding fathers were so concerned about: an armed force, acting with the [questionable] authority of and allegiance to a [possibly invalid] government that is ‘disconnected’ from the People.
The TARP, GM/Chrysler-takeover, & [esp] prove that the current government *is* disconnected from the People. Elected officials saying things like “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it” and the response of “Seriously?” to inquiries of the constitutionality of legislation not only further prove the point, but illustrate an arrogance so surpassing hubris that the *absence* of bigotry would be miraculous.
The stories such as the WI open-carry arrest, despite the State’s AG saying that open-carry in itself was not prosecutable even under “disturbing the peace,” show at least those police as bearing allegiance to the will of the political elite rather than the people, or even their ‘boss’ the State’s AG.
I suppose the simplest way to express my view is: it is foolish to assume the highest of the police to the point wherein you dismiss out-of-hand the possible abuses of their position. (ie Don’t leave out the ‘verify’ part of “trust, but verify.”)
>Oh, don’t get me wrong, those cops were buttheads. So were the nasty female cop that threatened me with arrest for standing on a sidewalk with
>a protest sign minding my own business. But that doesn’t mean all cops are bad, or that there aren’t some whole departments that suck and some
>whole departments that are really professional. In fact, every other interaction I’ve had with law enforcement has been professional, including
>a run-in with more cops on the same street corner a few weeks later.
I see. Your view is, if you will, “optimistic, but realizing that things can go wrong” as opposed to my “somewhat cynical, with the realization that not everyone will fail.”
I’m interested that the police receive due process like anybody else, and that people don’t jump to conclusions based on prejudice, or incorrect information.
The Founders would be entirely unfamiliar with the notion of more & more & more police & prosecutors are necessary, with an unlimited taxpayer-funded checkbook to draw upon for salaries, investigations, prosecutions & retirement pensions.
One further thought - the catch-and-release mentality in our current legal system (once again, a mentality that the Founders would NOT comprehend) might be construed by a cynical critic as a thinly-veiled effort to keep business brisk...
>>The police had NO WARRANT !!
>
>According to the father, they apparently didn’t need one.
Then the father is misinformed.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.
As the above clearly states searches [and seizures] are not to be done without warrants.
Scott was *dead* by this time, and presumably his next-of-kin would be just getting that news,
so what possible “probable cause” could be used to justify a search-warrant?
None, which is why they didn’t have one.
>BTW, did either of the two mystery objects show up at the inquest?
I don’t know.
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.