I've just found a story from the LV Sun about the case and after having glanced at it I have several thoughts but I'll save all but two for now.
The ones I *won't* save are 1)Scott was carrying *two* handguns at the time,one of which he wasn't licensed to have.The story says that that's a felony in NV.But more importantly (to me) is...what's the deal with *two* weapons?? Yah,I can see having one...I have no problem with *one*.But *two*,even if legal,suggests to me that he might have had a screw loose.
And 2) suing Costco is Barbara Streisand.Suing the cops might be logical....but Costco didn't fire any weapons and they didn't *cause* any weapons to be fired.Suing them is a sign that a slimey lawyer is at work here looking for *DEEP* pockets and a *HUGE* payday for himself.
And,lastly,I'd be curious to see if any toxicology tests were done in the autopsy (I'll wager there were) and how they turned out.I'd also want to see what psychiatric history,in any,Scott,and the cops,had...and what trouble,in any,Scott had with the police/courts (civilian and military) in the past...and what disciplinary problems,if any,the cops involved might have had in the past.
OK...I'm ready...flame away!
Among other VALID reasons to do so, suing Costco gets you more chance at discovery as to why all the cameras didn’t work, and work at the most important moments.
A back up gun is not uncommon, especially with the small, light .380's available these days. It's called a "New York Reload" Also, guns can malfunction, it's easier to go for your backup than screw around clearing a jam.
As it says in the article, it appears that the Costco employees (either through panic or in an effort to get faster police response) embellished their account of what Scott was doing in the store. If this led to cops thinking they were going into a confrontation with a wild-eyed armed nut, then Costco is certainly responsible. Then there's the conveniently malfunctioning surveillance equipment...
no need really, you are already flaming...
You should have stopped right there.
Scott was carrying weapons while under the influence of drugs. That's a felony in Nevada. If he followed the law he'd still be alive. The second gun in his pocket was not on his CCW permit, which was another legal infraction.
And,lastly,I'd be curious to see if any toxicology tests were done in the autopsy (I'll wager there were) and how they turned out.
Scott had six times the normally lethal amount of morphine in his system and one time the normally lethal amount of Xanax. The mixture of the two drugs is dangerous under normal levels. Scott obtained these drugs illegally, either by doctor shopping ( a doctor shopping report on Scott was being processed for Scott before the shooting ), or with a stolen prescription pad. Scott stumbled multiple times in the store. He told one of the employees he was "messed up." He wrote illegibly on the membership application. His fiance propped him up with a shopping cart at one point.
Why bother.
suing Costco is Barbara Streisand
Not really as it was a Costco employee that triggered a swat like response from the police and the majority of witnesses disagree with Costco and LVPD's version of events.
And,lastly,I'd be curious to see if any toxicology tests were done in the autopsy (I'll wager there were)
There were and Scott was under the care of a pain management specialist for old injuries from military training and a car accident. The Coroner claims that he was on enough meds to outright kill someone. That is also in dispute.
Remember that the hearing only tells one side of the story.
If such was present in his records or corpse the metro pd would have displayed that on a billboard IMO .......nothing was found.
Silence from the coroners autopsy regarding what you suggest.
Anyone know the names of the metro shooters ? Would be interested as I know a few of their wife beaters on that force that were fired from department I worked for.
I know a few people who carry two. Most of them have past military or LEO service and heartily believe in having a 'backup' (often smaller and lighter caliber) weapon in case their strong side arm/hand is disabled in an altercation so they can continue to defend themselves without fumbling for their main weapon.
No, I neither consider it unusual nor 'crackpot', but simply good preparation for any fracas one might end up in. Since these are guys who have been in such situations either in combat or the line of duty, it seems prudent.
Keep in mind that I come from a state where the CCW is for the person, not the individual weapon: the number of weapons on your person is at your individual discretion (you do not require an individual permit for each firearm or other dangerous weapon unless NFA rules apply).