Sorry,that's illogical.Costco can't reasonably be sued for having malfunctioning cameras.Cameras at a place like that are meant to show stuff like a customer shoplifting or *pretending* to slip and fall,etc.They're not meant to provide support for the LVPD.Yes,one possible explanation for the malfunctioning cameras is "police cover up".There are other,more innocent,explanations too (ever had a hard drive die on you? I have).And if it;s due to a cover up then the LVPD had the best motive to damage the drives,not Costco for *they* clearly did nothing wrong here (and no,I don't own any Costco stock).
Nope...now that I know that Costco is being sued I smell a rat here with the family.It's kinda like something that happened near Boston a few years ago...nightclub fire...a bad one....100 kids killed.Lawsuits everywhere.Evidence of fire code violations,etc.The owners (who weren't rich) were sued,understandably,as was the band that was appearing (also not rich),and others.One of the suits was against Shell Oil Company because THEY SPONSORED THE EVENT!!!
That's what I'm talking about.
Actually the reason to sue Costc is because supposedly the call to police was not a correct version of events that happened inside the store and that there was no reason to state that Eric Scoot was a danger. If Costco employees incorrectly descibed Scott as a danger then they would be liable.
Gay State Conserv???
You make too many assumptions that Costco and PD are telling the whole truth. I am amazed at your lack of depth and clarity into what happens AFTER something happens. Note that I am not alledging an outright conspiriacy mind you.
It is common practice in most business and probably all government circles to quibble long enough to insure that there is doubt at every step. Recall knowledge is power-you control teh info/knowledge, you play it when appropriate. IF the cameras were not working, the you are correct, if they were (and evidence seems to indicate some were) then it is in the governments and costocos best interest at present to not let that become public for any reason. Only a judge can compel them to release anything. They know more of the truth than Scott ever did, the public ever will.
As far as your comments about his mental state, tox report etc-let’s get this straight- a man does not get into WP and serve honorably, nor does he get a CCW permit and a good job easily along with such mental defects etc. Note-I questioned his term of service-he graduated WP in ‘94, and the service obligation for WP is nominally 5 years, but he separated early, if I recall, so don’t think I think Scott walked on water.....
Scott’s actions are vaguely reported at best, witnesses are very vague for the most part (now, if some irrational maniac were running around, don’t you think that would stand out and be noticed clearly, at least by some?).
While I support Law Enforcement to a high degree, we see an awful lot of weird response incidents going on. I can certainly understand cops shooting down an active shooter or a bank robber etc, but more and more they shoot folks about “compliance” real or perceived.
I think we have a situation wherein too many cops are as afraid of a friendly chat with a fellow citizen as most private citizens are. A doogie pees on your tires or shreds your trash, we call the cops rather than going to see your neighbor and drink a glass of tea while discussing the problem....
Best;
Before you two get locked into a heated debate over Costco’s Security Cameras, let me ask you both this.
Do you not find it the least bit odd that with all the customers being asked to leave the store, with cop cars outside, firetrucks and ambulances in the parking lot, AND IT’S LAS VEGAS, that there is not one, single, person that caught ANY of this incident on their cell phone camera?????
What kind of odds would they give on that in Vegas?
How about because they [Costco] failed to comply with the law REQUIRING them to post a “we don’t allow conceal carry” sign if that is their policy?
OR is complying wholly and completely with the law only incumbent upon the individual with no ‘connections’?
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.