Officer in Costco shooting says man raised gun, didn’t know it was in holster

Las Vegas Sun ^ | 23 Sept 2010 | Cara McCoy, Dave Toplikar

[Mr Rogers]

This comes from a Vegas paper, so I'll summarize:

Day 1 of the inquest into the police shooting of Eric Scott at a Las Vegas Costco emphasized the large amount of prescription painkillers found in his body. The assistant DA suggested Scott was suicidal.

Day 2 apparently spent a bunch of time explaining why there will be no video...basically, the machines weren't working, sorry.

Then the cop who was closest to Scott testified. In his testimony, he says the gun found by investigators was in its holster, and that he didn't realize the gun was in its holster when he shot Scott. That info comes about 2/3 of the way into the article:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/officer-deadly-shooting-says-man-pointed-gun-didnt/

[smokingfrog]

Re: The prescription drug use. This is very interesting.

Erik Scott: Medical Misdirection

[kiryandil]

LOL! SnakeDoctor: 'I can recite chapter & verse about Mumia, but I dunno who Horiuchi is'

"Selective intellectualism" at its finest.

[Mr Rogers]

It is simply STUPID to say he had lethal levels of drugs in his system. If he had, he wouldn’t have been alive for the LVPD to shoot.

[kiryandil]

Saw your earlier post back to me. Thanks for the link to this Scott article!

[SnakeDoctor]

A noteworthy reasonable response in a sea of anti-cop irrationality. Kudos.

SnakeDoc

[Deaf Smith]

I have not read that the off site recording has been released.

I suspect that it will not, until Costco is ordered to do so by a court.

[kiryandil]

Well, how can I refute such an intellectual argument such as “I know you are, but what am I?”

Wow! It was fascinating watching you beat the stuffing out of your own strawman. Arms tired?

[Mr Rogers]

“Mr Scott is being accused of pointing his weapon at a dog AND the dog’s owner four months prior.”

What that doesn’t add is that the dog bit Scott and he pointed his gun at the 70 lb dog...I’d have shot it. Or that the owner went back to his room and got his own gun before he went looking for Mr Scott. That kind of puts things in a different light, doesn’t it?

[kiryandil]

I'm not a bootlicker or a cop hater. I think most do a good job under shitty circumstances but after Ruby Ridge and Waco I take every case by itself.

I'll second your motion. "I think most do a good job under shitty circumstances."

[SnakeDoctor]

I looked him up. So what? Horihuchi is not relevant to this topic.

You’ve brought your biases to the table, and you show them by bringing up cases that have no bearing on this one. Keep your eye on the ball, cop-hater.

SnakeDoc

[DJ MacWoW]

Spare me the sob story.

Sob story? Nope.I called you out on a juvenile rant. One that can't be proven too. Find more than one of us spouting anti-cop rhetoric on another police thread.

One person called you a name. The rest of us did not. But yet you smear everyone with the same brush. And one that you can't prove.

I’ve known men that were gunned-down in the line of duty in standoffs that started like this.

Did they fire 7 bullets into a crowd of innocents too?

[IrishCatholic]

No, I can make fun of you all night. But it is sort of mean to tease the kids on the short bus. I’ll stop if you cry.

[kiryandil]

**yawn**

[Mr Rogers]

According to his family:

“What they will not tell the jury: That Erik had a broken back and suffered from excruciating, debilitating pain. They won’t mention that 40 percent of Erik’s L5 vertebra was fractured, and that several of his spine’s discs were compressed. These old injuries probably were incurred by jumping from C-130 airplanes five times, during Army airborne training. His old back injury was aggravated greatly by a car accident in recent times, which caused chafing of the spinal nerves and severe pain.”

Thanks, smokingfrog.

[MS.BEHAVIN]

Yeah, I know.
However, just because a cop is not in good physical shape does not give him the right to shoot someone solely based on that reason.

If he is not fit to perform his duties on the street, then park his fat butt behind a desk.

[SnakeDoctor]

They threatened a utility worker that was going to turn off their water. A friend of mine responded to the call, and was shot in the head as he approached the residence.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/breaking/6526833.html

As for your “proof” ... this ain’t a court. I’ve got all the “proof” I need to apply the label.

SnakeDoc

[kiryandil]

There is no bottom to the feeding frenzy as several posters are demonstrating, including smartass insults to longtime Freepers.

You don't need to take my side. I just ignored the smartass insults.

[OneWingedShark]

The smell of ‘lynch the pigs’ is growing stronger at FR. Sheesh ...

I have a theory on this phenomena; the recent sharp changes in attitude toward police is the result of several factors:

1. In many places the police motto/purpose is "to serve and protect" yet there is NO LEGAL OBLIGATION for the police to protect any particular individual OR any particular group of individuals. {Consider Columbine, Virgina Tech, etc where the police pretty much waited for the shooters to kill themselves before making any move thereon.}
2. In contrast to the supposed role of the police as "law enforcement" the officers do not enforce the laws uniformly; and may even pick-and-choose which laws they will enforce.
   {This means that the likelihood of being arrested/cited/ignored for something illegal can be VERY dependent on the officer's personal biases.}
3. Police officers act as though [many/most] laws do not apply to them.
4. Police officers enjoy that they are given *many* exceptions to the restrictions legally imposed on other citizens; consider all the places an officer may carry where another Citizen is prohibited.
5. Many police officers have a poor understanding of the law; consider the recent stories of Citizens exercising open-carry under their State's Constitution who are harassed by the police.
   {The guy arrested for open-carrying on his own property springs to mind.}
6. Many police officers fail to recognize the scope of laws... that is: does a city/county law that is contrary to a State's Constitution cannot be [logically] valid.
7. The proliferation of felonies and "stupid laws" reduce 'criminal' to a no-meaning word because the act of just [trying to earn a] living has become regulated. {You can be a felon for possessing a lobster.}
8. The police themselves do not challenge the constitutionality of the laws they are to enforce; ...consider that New Mexico (whose State Constitution prohibits laws abridging the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for defense) also has a law prohibiting firearms on university campuses. {That prohibition keeps students living in on-campus housing from both keeping and bearing arms.}
   This sort of legal contradiction is not uncommon and, for intents and purposes, [IMO] serves only to strip Citizens of their rights.
9. The inaction of police regarding such conundrums as in #8 should be disturbing in itself; the enforcement of the lesser laws is nothing less than the police usurping power from you, the Citizen.

So, given the above, why should these "law enforcement" officers be given any leeway? Consider that they are actively enforcing laws which are themselves illegal.

[IrishCatholic]

Ohh, sleepy already? Nap time. Sweet dreams.

[smokingfrog]

Also this:

We also have to account for ACLS (Advanced Cardiac Life Support) medications, such as atropine and epinephrine, that were administered to Erik by the ambulance crew, as they transported my son’s body to University Medical Center on July 10th. And what drugs were injected at the hospital?