Posted on 10/05/2010 6:01:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
The "Long Gray Line" is bringing pressure on the Vegas department following Erik Scott's death in a hail of bullets.
It was a foregone conclusion that a coroner’s inquest in Las Vegas would find three Metro police officers justified in gunning down Erik Scott in a hail of bullets outside of a crowded Costco on July 10, even though five of the seven bullets hit him from behind, and at least one appeared to have been fired while Scott lay prone, dead or dying on the ground.
Police were called to the store after an employee described Scott as both armed and acting as if he were under the influence of narcotics. As Scott and his girlfriend emerged from the store along with dozens of other shoppers, he was confronted by a trio of officers with weapons already drawn. Scott was identified by a Costco employee, and seconds later, Scott lay dead on the ground. These are the facts of the case that are not in dispute.
What is very much in dispute is whether or not Costco employees unnecessarily escalated the threat, whether the store chain’s unclear policies on customers carrying weapons and their employee training contributed to the events that led to Scott’s death, and whether or not police officers violated Erik Scott’s civil rights when they killed him in a confrontation that some argue was little more than an ambush or assassination.
Erik Scott’s family is expected to file a civil case against Costco, the Metro police, and the individual officers over his death, but that isn’t the only action being called for because of this incident. Metro has raised the ire of the the Long Gray Line — Erik Scott’s fellow graduates of the United States Military Academy.
Sources have provided PJM with copies of communications between members of the group. Alumni in the threaded discussion seem almost universally suspect of the coroner’s inquest process used in Las Vegas, where prosecutors and law enforcement control the witnesses called and the questions asked, and disallow cross-examination. Since 1976, law enforcement officers have been in front of the coroner’s inquest more than 200 times, and none has resulted in criminal charges being filed against an officer for even the most controversial shootings.
One alum wrote to the president of one of the larger West Point Society chapters:
I don’t know if you are aware of the tragic shooting of Eric Scott ‘94 in Las Vegas not long ago. It looks more and more like a police screw up and cover up on top of that. We are trying to bring as much political pressure to bear, as possible, to make sure the “truth” comes out.
Another suggested that members bring the Scott case to the attention of West Point and Naval Academy graduates in Congress: Rep. John Shimkus, Rep. Joe Sestak, Rep. Geoff Davis, Rep. Brett Guthrie, Senator Jack Reed, Senator John McCain, and Senator Jim Webb, and well as Nevada’s Congressional delegation, plus Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy and Chairman of the House Judicial Committee John Conyers. (Interestingly enough, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s name was never mentioned.)
One of the strongest comments openly suggested that the Metropolitan Police Department should be considered as an adversary:
I think that we, as a society, need to take a more active stance. This needs to go to the AOG. Remember the words of “The Corps.” We all took the same oath the Erik Scott did many years ago, on the Plain “to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.” The abuse of due process, not only for Erik, but all of the others who didn’t have a voice is an attack on the Constitution.
There were at least three of us at the vigil last night. I think that we need to have a much more visible presence to show our support of a member of The Long Gray Line.
Another graduate called Metro PD an “out of control police force,” a characterization that seems to match up with the analysis of the shooting conducted by Mike McDaniel, a former police officer and SWAT operator (also my co-blogger at Confederate Yankee) who recently analyzed the audio of the 911 call and the police radio transcripts. Troubling bursts of static in the Metro radio traffic at key points indicate that these communications need to be examined, and the lack of in-car camera footage from the multiple police cars is also odd — to put it mildly. This is on top of the fact that Costco’s cameras seemingly malfunctioned in the days before the shooting, meaning that none of the four cameras pointed at the scene of the shooting recorded the event according to Metro and Costco — the two entities that have the most to lose from disclosure of such evidence.
A letter composed by one of the officers has been submitted to Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice, outlining “an on-going pattern of police misconduct” by authorities in Las Vegas and citing 63 officer-involved shootings since 2005.
Eric Scott’s death may have been ruled justifiable during the coroner’s inquest, but the pending civil trial to be filed by his family, and the specter of a federal civil rights case being filed against the department, means that the spotlight on the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and its leadership will only get brighter.
As I wrote, the cops couldn't read his mind or see the chamber of his gun.
Irrelevant. No one is asking them to. What we expect is a presumption of innocence before a cop opens fire.
Scott was exiting quietly. All agree he had no gun visible while exiting. All agree he was not acting like a threat.
So, why do YOU think the cops opened fire within 6 seconds?
Do you think TWO SECONDS is enough time for an innocent person to comprehend the cops demands and be on his knees?
Oh, and this “On your knees” crap has me pissed, too. “Hands up!” I understand - but to expect someone to drop in their knees within 2 seconds, or you will KILL THEM? That is police state mentality, and supporting it is supporting tyranny.
Mosher approached Scott from behind. According to his testimony, he held his gun chest high and told Scott to turn around. During the next two seconds, Mosher supposedly noticed Scott’s eyes were bloodshot, that he was out of control, and he saw Scott’s gun in his waistband, although that isn’t possible once Scott turned around. While noticing all this, he ordered Scott to his feet, decided Scott was a threat, and opened fired. All in TWO SECONDS.
In two seconds, Mosher says he yelled “Put your hands where I can see them now. Drop it! Get on the ground! Get on the ground!” and since Scott still had not complied, he fired.
Try yelling the same thing. Mosher says he was the only one giving commands. Try getting all those words out in two seconds.
“He refused to comply with those commands, to show his hands, or to get on the ground,” Mosher testified. So Mosher shot him.
Now, perhaps you will explain how Scott could have complied in the two seconds he had, starting with the first word...
Also, the Costco employee had to point Scott out to the cop. Scott walked past Mosher, and Mosher didn’t know he was the suspect. The Costco employee pointed him out.
Want to explain how Mosher knew Scott was a deadly threat, even though he didn’t know it seconds earlier when Scott walked past him?
Why, yes, I DID write that.
I'm not sure how you managed to twist that statement into the strawman "Some here claim that if no round was chambered, the cops should have known that before they fired."
Let me explain it to you. See, YOU or SOMEONE ELSE pretending that Erik Scott's gun had a round in the chamber has NOTHING to do with the police.
The police got to assume that there WAS a round in the chamber.
After the fact, which is where the pretending is at, NO ONE, including the police, are allowed to get away with it.
For example, if Officer Mosher found out that there wasn't a round chambered, and he had a shred of decency or integrity, he wouldn't go in front of an inquest and start telling fantastic stories about he could fire a gun through a holster just like Erik's.
He'd man up, and say, "Gosh, there wasn't a round in the chamber of Erik's gun. I guess I must have misread his intentions in the confusion."
But that would open Metro to BOATLOADS of liability, so it's easier to put the smear on the "drug-crazed snap-shoot-through-the-holster dead guy.
The police should get to use the fact that they didn't know if it was loaded "to assert that he could have shot through his holster, and taken innocent people hostage".
Mosher was led to believe that Scott was an armed threat under the influence of drugs by his dispatcher. Assuming that Scott was innocent would have gone against Mosher's training and his duty as a police officer.
Agreed. For some reason Mr Rogers keeps dropping back to use his 20/20 hindsight.
“Assuming that Scott was innocent would have gone against Mosher’s training and his duty as a police officer.”
Then the LVPD needs to seriously change how they do business. It is NOT the job of a cop to act as judge, jury and executioner on the basis of hearsay.
Nor does it require 20/20 “HIND”sight - just plain sight would do - just eyes that can see a person walking quietly out of the store. Remember, Mosher had to have Scott pointed out to him, and Scott had already passed by Mosher. Hmmm....either Mosher let an armed and dangerous threat pass by him without noticing, OR Scott was not an armed and dangerous threat.
But if cops can shoot on suspicion, we live in tyranny. When I flew patrol over Iraq in the 90s, we had to wait until we were fired on. We didn’t get to bomb a gun site just because it was there. Odd, isn’t it, that I couldn’t kill someone in Iraq on the same evidence that you believe the LVPD can kill people in Costco.
Are dispatchers allowed to order the death of civilians based on 911 calls? What sort of world do you want to live in, where someone can mark you out for death by just calling in, saying you have a gun, and were behaving erratically?
Maybe you want to live in a world where a cop can order you to your knees, and you have less than a second to comply or die. I don’t. And neither did the folks who founded our country.
At the front of the store as Scott was leaving Mosher touched his elbow. Scott pulled away and reached for his gun. Mosher understandably interpreted that as a threatening move, however I think it's possible that, once again, Scott was checking to make sure his gun was concealed. Scott told Mosher he had a gun. Understandably, Mosher probably interpreted that as a threatening statement. At that point Scott should have waited for instructions as any person in their right mind would do in that circumstance. Scott then lifted his shirt, reached around to unclip his holster and gun. At about that time Mosher became alarmed and quickly yelled out his commands, but Scott continued to move the gun toward Mosher, and Mosher shot him.
20/20 hindsight is irrelevant. I agree that Scott had no intention of shooting Mosher or anyone else, and that he most likely took the initiative to disarm himself. However, he made a series of bad decisions in a dangerous situation that got himself killed. After the inquest, even Erik's dad said that Costco was more to blame than the police. Maybe one day his dad will see that Erik had the most responsibility in his own demise.
Maybe you want to live in a world where a cop can order you to your knees, and you have less than a second to comply or die. I don’t. And neither did the folks who founded our country.
If I made the same mistakes Erik did, I would expect to die. I don't think he would have lived to see 40 with the mixture of drugs he was taking. I think our founding fathers expected us to act like responsible citizens. That's why they gave us the right choose our leaders and to be armed.
CCW holders have more responsibility than others. Scott should not have been carrying his guns that day. He was impaired by drugs. After he knocked over a sign a cashier heard Scott tell his girlfriend that he shouldn't be out in public because of his condition. CCW holders are supposed to keep their weapons concealed. As soon as Costco told him to leave because of it he should have left.
“According to the 911 call, Scott later walked quickly to the front of the store touching his gun the whole way, which understandably was interpreted as threatening.”
Incorrect. There is nothing threatening about someone touching some part of their body. Since the gun was concealed, it was covered - and you cannot draw a covered gun. During this time, on the 911 call, Lierley is downplaying his original hype. Lierley said that Scott did not threaten anyone inside the store; didn’t act violently; and didn’t remove the gun from his waistband (that is from Lierley’s testimony day 2).
No one has claimed Scott was acting in a threatening, hostile or angry manner while leaving the store. He passed Mosher without Mosher knowing he was the suspected armed and dangerous man. Lierley was following behind Scott and talking to the dispatcher on his cell phone. He then told Mosher that Scott was the man they had called about.
“As he got to the front of the store, all that matters is how he behaved once he made contact with the police.”
Disagree. It takes two to tango, and BOTH Scott’s actions and the cops impact what follows. And what follows, from first contact to fatal shot, happens in 5 seconds. At this point, Scott has no reason to believe he has been ID’d to the cops as a drug-taking danger to society.
With 6 seconds to death, Scott isn’t known to the cops as a suspect. During the next 4 seconds, he is ID’d. Mosher touches his arm from behind. Scott pulls his arm free and turns. He reaches for his gun (probably to see if it is still there, a normal reaction for someone carrying who has been touched from behind). Mosher’s gun is already drawn and pointed at Scott’s chest.
Scott raises one arm (a bullet went into his armpit) and pulls out his holstered weapon while saying he has a gun and his girlfriend is shouting at Mosher, “Don’t shoot!”
With 2 seconds to go, Mosher issues a stream of commands, and shoots as he finishes his last word. MOsher testified, ““He refused to comply with those commands, to show his hands, or to get on the ground” - but in two seconds (maybe 0.5 seconds from last word to first shot), Scott could not have complied. It simply isn’t possible.
Until I saw the DA’s time line, I put more emphasis on Scott’s actions. But I cannot get past the 6 seconds from “We don’t see the suspect” to “Bang!”, or the TWO seconds from first word to first shot.
Scott didn’t have time to do much wrong. You cannot pull a gun out with the holster the same way you pull a gun out. In one, you grip the handle of the gun and pull damn fast if you are pulling against a guy whose gun is already pointed at you. In the other, you have to take hold of the entire holster so you can pull the clip free of your pants. He didn’t act like a threat before, and his action was not a threat then.
Mosher shot him without giving him a chance to comply. That is not good police work. That is not standard police training. That is a trigger happy cop pulling a trigger without thinking.
I’d be interested in knowing what gun Mosher used. If a Glock, another scenario is possible. Glocks only require 5 lbs of pressure on the trigger to fire (just a bit more than the 3.5 lbs needed for single action shooting, and far less than the 12+ lbs used in revolvers). If Mosher had his finger of the trigger of a Glock, he may have accidentally pulled the trigger. Adrenaline can do that, which is why I don’t like it when cops carry Glocks.
And once one cops fire, all cops fire. And the cop who screwed up cannot afford to admit he made a mistake (accidental discharge, or negligent discharge as the Army now calls it).
Or maybe Mosher was trigger happy. But if the DA’s time line is correct, Scott didn’t have much time to change from a guy exiting the store to an armed and dangerous threat. Not in under 6 seconds.
Scott was not a blameless human. But if I’d been exiting Costco in that situation, I’d have died too. And I’m not dangerous, and I don’t deserve to die for carrying a concealed weapon. Not even if my shirt pulls up for a moment and someone sees it.
Also - based on what happened to Scott, my plan if a cop stops me while I’m carrying is to raise my hands. Make them put all the bullets into my armpits, so my family can at least live their lives in comfort after I’m shot.
The CCW class I took last June discussed being stopped by cops, but their advice was to try not to scare the cop. Neither instructor, both ex-cops, could say how to be certain of that. One said he had been badly scared by a cop during a traffic stop. Nothing in the class covered the “right” way to disarm or react.
not that in bad light a buzz lightyear wont get ya dead really quickly...
I'll give cops the benefit of the doubt, so long as they permorm due diligence and at least attempt to verify, which in this case, they forced the issue w/o bothering to check the facts fer themselves...
the only reason mosher 'knew' that scott was armed, was on the sayso of a rent-a-wannabe...he couldve easily passed his piece to the girlfriend and mosher wouldve shot an UN-armed man in the same 2-6 seconds due to his failure to 'know his target'...and im certain his tunnel vision whacked his perception of any backstop smaller than the broad side of costco...
from curlys own mouth...he wasnt interested in talkin, he wanted to beatdown a citizen on a costco employees word...
he was amped and with the timeline, even if i give him the 30 seconds in the benefit of the doubt, he was shooting somebody if they didnt do what he said, regardless of innocence...
the rest of it appears to be the results of your own imagination, as it doesnt jive with the majority of witnesses from inside or outside the store, the partial 911 call, or the other partial radio traffic...
now tell me, why in the hell was a chopper, swat and half of vegas' pd called out for a man legally carrying a firearm in the first place ???
Sorry. I appear to be talking right over your tunnel vision.
Your first two sentences are a load of pony poop:
When Scott was told to leave by the store by the Costco manager he refused.
The Costco manager, Lopez, told Erik Scott that the Summerlin Costco doesn't allow guns. He never asked Erik Scott to leave.
[Erik Scott] told the manager that he was a Green Beret (which he wasn't).
Costco Loss Prevention supervisor Shai Lierley told the 911 operator about the "Green Beret" comment. Lierley isn't the sharpest tool in the drawer, so I have little doubt that he, being a shining example of the current youth of America, translated a remark that Scott made into "Green Beret". It's an old term that not many people use any more. The most common current term is "Special Forces", which training Erik Scott apparently had received. It's one of the reasons his back was messed up. [Bill Scott: "These old injuries probably were incurred by jumping from C-130 airplanes five times, during Army airborne training."]
The "Green Beret" stuff is hearsay from Lierley - a deadly game of Telephone, as it were.
FWIW - I have a good friend who went through Special Forces training. He washed out on the third & last jump because his knee was beaten up from the previous jumps. Is he Special Forces? Yes and no. He'll never say that he's SF, but the only reason he didn't complete the course was that he couldn't walk.
Your posts are nothing but GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.
>>As I wrote, the cops couldn’t read his mind or see the chamber of his gun.
>
>Agreed. For some reason Mr Rogers keeps dropping back to use his 20/20 hindsight.
But isn’t that what’s SUPPOSED to happen in a court of law or, *gasp*, an inquest?
To find out what REALLY happened; i.e. “20/20 hindsight” and then mesh that with the subjective (states of mind, confusion, “human-ness”); and THEN apply the reasoning/law?
Or is it really all about being able to yell the loudest and point fingers insisting that someone was “wronger” than you?
Question: Would Moser have been justified [in such a shooting] if Scott had said “Fuck off asshat!”, turned around, and walked away?
If so, WHY?
Old article about Mosher’s previous shooting. I’d have shot in this spot also...but I hope I wouldn’t put myself in this spot to begin with.
Mosher was in front of the car with the suspect behind the wheel, and his partner Wiggins was at the rear of the car. When the suspect started to back up the car, both cops fired.
However, is it just me, or is it odd to have one officer standing in front of a car with a suspected felon at the wheel, and another officer behind the car? Is there a worse place an officer can put himself besides the immediate front or rear of a car with suspected felon at the wheel?
I’m not an LEO, but I generally avoid standing immediately in front of or to the rear of a horse, and the horse isn’t a felon...
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.