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.
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.