The Office of the Public Administrator was established by the Nevada Legislature in 1922 and is an elected office with a four year term. A PA is authorized for each county. Public Administrators may appoint as many deputies as they consider necessary to do their jobs. Oversight of each PA Office is in the hands of the Commissioners of each county. Public Administrators are responsible for securing the estates of people who have died, leaving no family or relatives able to deal with that property. They deal with real estate, wills, trusts, bank accounts and similar, related matters. The relevant portion of the law is:

�NRS 253.0405 �Circumstances under which public administrator may secure property of deceased. �Before the issuance of the letters of administration for an estate, before filing an affidavit to administer an estate pursuant to NRS 253.0403 or before petitioning to have an estate set aside pursuant to NRS 253.0425, the public administrator may secure the property of a deceased person if the administrator finds that:

1. �There are no relatives of the deceased who are able to protect the property; or

�Failure to do so could endanger the property.�

The statute makes clear that the PA may act to care for the estates of the deceased if no joint tenants or relatives exist to protect the property and if their failure to do so may endanger the property. Enter the Scott case.

Erik Scott was shot and killed by Metro Police Officers at approximately 1 PM on July 10, 2010. Shortly thereafter, deputies of the Clark County Public Administrator began calling Erik�s younger brother, Kevin to obtain permission to enter Erik�s Las Vegas condominium, ostensibly to secure it. Between three and four attempts were made to contact Kevin. The first was a message left on his answering machine telling Kevin that the PA�s office intended to enter Erik�s home and asking him to call back. Kevin, who was traveling on business by air, did return the call and spoke with PA Deputy Steve Grodin. Kevin, who had only just heard of Erik�s death at the hands of Metro Police, was trying to serve as the primary point of contact between the authorities and his family while in the midst of making airline connections. Grodin made plain to Kevin that he intended to enter Erik�s home, with or without Kevin�s permission, but was seeking his permission, which Kevin clearly refused to give, telling the Deputy that he was about to board an aircraft and accordingly, would not be reachable for some time.

Despite this warning, the PA�s office continued to call Kevin, leaving messages at 5:57 PM and again at 7:03 PM. It is the 7:03 PM call that appears on You Tube. In that call, Grodin makes clear his intention to enter Erik�s home, but remains intent on obtaining Kevin�s permission. In the message, Grodin identified himself by name as a Deputy with the Public Administrator�s Office. He said that he had already contacted a locksmith because he did not have a key to Erik�s home and that the locksmith was �enroute� to �change out the deadbolt.� Grodin said that he intended to secure �weapons and valuables.� Grodin, who clearly sounds frustrated, said that Erik�s �...girlfriend has been stonewalling me...� and telling him that she [Samantha Sterner] did not want him to enter the house. Grodin said that he knew that she lived there and that her clothing and other property was there. He said that Sterner told him that she had been in touch with Erik�s parents and their attorney, and both did not want him to enter the home, but he said that he did not believe her because he had not been able to contact them and that he had �full authority� to enter the house [It's unclear where Grodin got this idea as Scott's parents were unaware of his desire to enter Erik's home for some time]. He said that there was an open window and he could enter there. He again mentioned that a locksmith was coming and said something unintelligible regarding the �Metro Police,� but in the context of his comments, it�s clear he was saying that the Police were with him. Grodin was running a bluff. He demonstrably did not have authority, full or otherwise, to enter Erik�s home.

Neither Kevin, nor any other member of the Scott family, gave the PA�s Office permission to enter Erik�s home. Grodin�s recorded message made clear that he was told repeatedly not to enter by Sterner who was exercising her legitimate rights to the property, yet Grodin, accompanied by at least one Metro Police Officer, did indeed enter Erik�s home where they seized and took a number of items of Erik�s property, some of which were eventually returned to the family. However, there is reason to believe that other items were taken from the home, items that were not acknowledged and not returned to the Scott family and which may be important in the future.

How did the PA�s Office become aware of Erik Scott and his home and what were they doing there? Why was a PA deputy so desperate to enter Erik�s home? Did he have lawful authority to be there, to enter, and to conduct a search and to seize Erik�s property? And why were the police there with the PA Deputy? This is a good time to revisit the foundation of the state�s authority to conduct searches and to seize property: The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution:

�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.�

This is significant in that Public Administrators and their deputies are not, under Nevada law, law enforcement officers (�Peace Officers� in NRS language). While the law could, under certain unusual and specific circumstances, confer certain temporary law enforcement powers on a PA or deputy, this would require appointment by a prosecuting attorney or other officer of the executive or judicial branch having the power to make such appointment. There is no known evidence of such an appointment in this case. Nevada law clearly intends that Public Administrators function as custodians of real property and estates, not as enforcers of criminal law. In fact, the law specifically prohibits them from administering certain estates. Pay particular attention to 2.(a):

�NRS 253.0415 �Duties in administering estate; estates that administrator is not to administer.

1. �The public administrator shall: (a) Investigate:

(2) Whether there is any qualified person who is willing and able to serve as administrator of the estate of an intestate decedent to determine whether he or she is eligible to serve in that capacity.

2. �The public administrator shall not administer any estate:

(a) Held in joint tenancy unless all joint tenants are deceased;

NRS 253.042 �Investigatory powers. �In connection with an investigation conducted pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 253.0415, a public administrator may:

�Require any spouse, parent, child or other kindred of the decedent to give any information and to execute any written requests or authorizations necessary to provide the public administrator with access to records, otherwise confidential, needed to evaluate the public administrator�s eligibility to serve.�

I�ve reproduced the relevant portions of the law. Those interested in the portions I�ve omitted can satisfy themselves by accessing the link in the opening paragraph of this update, but will likely find them to be procedural rather than substantive.

It is clear that the PA has a duty--and the authority--to determine whether anyone is eligible and willing to serve as an estate administrator, to care for the property of someone who has died. It is also clear that he may compel relatives to provide information that will allow him to make that determination. However, the PA is SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED from administering any estate �Held in joint tenancy unless all joint tenants are deceased.�

Let us return to our earlier questions:

(1) How did the PA�s Office become aware of Erik Scott and his home and what were they doing there? The unqualified answer is not currently known, however, since a police officer accompanied Grodin on the search of Erik�s home, it�s reasonable to believe that the Metro Police notified the PA and enlisted his help. It is important to understand that an employee of the PA�s office has admitted that it is unusual for police officers to accompany them. It is not known what the police told Grodin, but he was obviously willing to cooperate with the police or felt an obligation to cooperate based on what he was told. Exactly who ordered this contact and their motives in so doing are currently unknown, but some reasonable inferences can and will be drawn.

The law does allow a variety of individuals and entities to contact the PA�s Office and request their help. It is not unreasonable to believe that the Metro Police, from time to time, do just that and for the most altruistic of reasons. However, it is also likely that this is not something encountered daily by the average officer, and that it almost certainly does not occur within minutes of a police shooting. It would be interesting, in fact, for the Las Vegas media to determine if this had ever occurred in the course of any of the many police shootings in the decade leading up to the Scott shooting and if so, under which circumstances? Specifically, has a PA Deputy ever led the Metro Police on an entry and search of the property of someone they have shot and killed, and what property, if any, did they seize?

(2) What was the Public Administrator doing at Erik�s home? Remember that Public Administrators are specifically prohibited from being involved where one who holds �joint tenancy� exists. �Joint tenancy� is reasonably understood to mean someone who actually lives in a given home as opposed to a mere visitor, someone having authority to live there who has or shares responsibility for that home. Was there such a joint tenant?

Indeed: Samantha Sterner, Erik�s girlfriend who was with Erik at the Costco and standing with him when he was shot and killed. Sterner had, in fact, moved in with Erik a week before Erik�s shooting and had full access to and control of the condo, including a key. The Police knew this because Sterner told them during the taped interview they conducted with Sterner after the shooting. Grodin also knew this as his own admission on the recording clearly proves. He also knew that Sterner--the girlfriend who was �stonewalling� him--who had, by any reasonable understanding of the term, �joint tenancy,� repeatedly refused him permission to enter. Grodin�s message also indicates that he wanted to contact Erik�s parents but failed. In this case, the wishes of Kevin Scott and Scott�s parents would hold moral, but no legal force. Sterner�s wishes certainly did, yet Grodin ignored her and in so doing, the police and he likely violated the law--potentially many laws. By the clear language of Nevada law, the PA apparently had no authority whatsoever to be involved. Of course, this raises the question of whether the Police told the PA�s Office of Sterner�s joint tenancy independent of Sterner, and if they did not, why they withheld that information. Was it merely a lack of communication or was less innocent motivation involved?

Remember that Grodin said that he intended to search for �weapons and valuables.� If Grodin and the Police were not merely on a fishing expedition in the hope of finding something, anything that might be used to smear or incriminate Erik Scott, how did Grodin come to expect to find �weapons� in Scott�s home? Remember too that Scott died shortly after being shot. There is no need to gather evidence to prosecute the dead. Any evidence to be discovered and seized in his home would have been useful only as a means of justifying the actions of the authorities in shooting him and in providing cover--if the police believed that such cover was necessary.

It appears obvious that the Police wanted to enter and search Erik�s home and seize property therein. Even if Grodin was unaware of Fourth Amendment restrictions on search and seizure (to say nothing of the very laws that establish and limit his office), the Police can claim no such naivete. The Police deal with issues of joint tenancy every day. They know that people don�t carry copies of leases, deeds or other legal documents with them. Any rational police officer speaking to Sterner would surely have concluded that as she actually lived there and her clothing and property were there, she was a joint tenant in control of the home. The police know that if one legitimately in control of a property refuses them entrance, they have only one remaining legal option: Obtain a search warrant.

There is reason to believe that this is the last thing they wanted to do. Why? All warrants are accompanied by a return document on which the police are required to specify the property seized. This return must be returned to the judge and filed with all the related paperwork after the search is conducted. In addition, warrants come with time limits. They must commonly be executed within a day, two at the most, of the time of issuance unless an exception is specifically granted by a judge and such exception must also appear on the warrant. There may be reason to believe that the police wanted the least possible paper trail. There may be reason to believe that they hoped to find a weapon in Scott�s home, the right kind of weapon, a weapon they knew existed, and that they did find what they were looking for.

(3) Why was a PA deputy so desperate to enter Erik�s home? The most obvious answer to this question, absent testimony under oath, is that Grodin, on behalf of the police, was looking for something. Under the kindest possible interpretation, Grodin, unaware of Sterner, intended to search in good faith for the identities of and information about Erik�s relatives or joint tenants. But this is not credible as Grodin knew of Sterner and her refusal to grant entry. He already knew of Erik�s relatives, particularly Kevin, who told Grodin that he intended to be in Las Vegas the next day. What then were they seeking and why? Why did the Police--through Grodin--continually try for more than six hours to obtain Kevin�s permission to enter Erik�s home, knowing that he did not have joint tenancy and therefore, no legal standing to consent? Remember that Grodin and the Police knew that Sterner had joint tenancy and of course, lived in Las Vegas and was immediately available to secure and maintain that property, a property that was consequently in no danger whatever. They also knew that Kevin Scott and Erik�s parents lived out of state. And why did they try to bluff, to intimidate Kevin, asserting authority they must have known that they did not have? Remember, Kevin�s authority would have been worthless, no better, legally speaking, than asking a passerby for permission. Could it have been the intention of Grodin and the Police--and Grodin did allude to this in the 7:03 PM call to Kevin--to ignore Sterner�s lawful claim of joint tenancy and to provide cover for themselves by trying to establish a competing claim by Kevin Scott using the fact that he was out of state as a transparent justification for immediately taking control of Erik�s home?

(4) Did he have lawful authority to be there, to enter, and to conduct a search and to seize Erik�s property? And why were the police there with the PA Deputy? Consider that the PA and his deputies are not law enforcement officers. They have no authority to conduct searches and seizures, nor do they have the means, training, expertise and facilities to properly handle evidence. Of course, the Metro Officer (or officers) that accompanied him do have such authority and abilities. This being the case, why was the PA�s Office involved at all? This is where the Fourth Amendment figures prominently.

While there are specific emergency exceptions to the warrant requirement, none apply in this case. For a police officer to lawfully conduct a search and to seize property that will be admissible in court, they must file a signed affidavit, under oath, with the court that explains their authority and relation to the case at hand, and that specifically establishes probable cause to believe that the items they seek are at a specific address. They must specify this address and must specifically describe each and every item they seek, and they must specifically explain why each and every item is liable to be seized. This latter qualification is very important. In addition, the law relating to searches is very specific. If, for instance, the police are looking for stolen truck tires, they may search any place in the specified building where a truck tire could possibly be hidden, but may not, for example, search in a kitchen drawer, in a cookie jar or in a jewelry case.

Warrants are issued to allow the police to protect and preserve evidence, evidence that might prove that a crime has been committed and that a particular person has committed it, or evidence of the crime itself such as stolen property. �Fruits of a crime� may also be seized. If, for example a burglar fences stolen property, obtains cash and buys an expensive watch, that watch may be seized as a fruit of the crime. Again, remember that Erik Scott was dead. No charges could be brought against him. There was no need to seize any evidence of potential crime.

Warrants aren�t issued on mere suspicion--the police can�t legally conduct fishing expeditions in the uninformed, desperate hope of finding, something, anything they might use against a suspect--but only upon probable cause which is universally understood to be facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe that a specific crime has been committed and that a specific person has committed it. Notice the requirement for very specific information, information which establishes probable cause. It is the judge who reads the affidavit, and if convinced that probable cause exists, authorizes the issuance of the actual warrant which specifies the place(s) to be searched and the property to be seized. No competent, honest judge will issue a warrant for a fishing expedition, or if any of the specific information required by the Constitution is unclear or missing from the affidavit.

Keep in mind too that in most police agencies of any size, patrol officers are not allowed to obtain warrants on their own. This is, for the most part, a matter of efficient resource allocation. Patrol officers are generally relegated to patrolling and taking initial reports of crimes, making only brief, on scene investigations with the aim of returning to the street as quickly as possible. Any report requiring more thorough investigation is routed to a detective responsible for that class of crime, such as car theft or residential burglary. It is detectives, officers of higher rank above and apart from patrol officers, who commonly obtain warrants when required. This does not mean that patrol officers never do so, but for most agencies this is uncommon. Patrol officers are adept at handling the forms they deal with every day, but most would not be familiar with the required documents and procedures involved in search warrants. I do not know the specific policies of the Metro Police in this regard, but suspect that it is in line with what I�ve represented here as it is throughout much of America. Also keep in mind that what is written in official police regulations and procedures and what officers actually do may be two different things. The real world often does not well agree with the world of paper and ink.

Erik�s home and the property within were substantially removed in time and location from the scene of the shooting. In fact when he was shot, Erik was not under arrest and the most serious crime of which the police could reasonably have suspected him was shoplifting or failing to leave the Costco (which would likely have been classified as trespassing), and both of these were incorrectly radioed to the responding officers by a dispatcher. In neither case could any evidence remotely related to such crimes have been at Erik�s home. Remember that no witness at the inquest testified that Erik shoplifted or was ever specifically asked to leave, hence, no crimes, no possible evidence of crimes, no lawful search.

The Police have asserted that the Ruger .380 ACP pistol reportedly found in Erik�s pocket by firefighter/medic Chris Thorpe constituted a crime, but the evidence of that �crime,� the pistol itself, was already in the hands of the police if their account of the incident is accurate. It may not be. All available evidence--to say nothing of common sense and constitutionally sound police procedure--indicates that Erik�s home had nothing whatever to do with any crime, nor did any of its contents. It was the home of a man the police shot and killed. That home was under the lawful control of Sterner, his joint tenant. The police knew this. Deputy Public Administrator Grodin knew this. The police had no lawful reason to enter or search Erik�s home or to take any property within. I am aware that I have repeated this point more than once. As Shakespeare said, there is method in my madness.

Experienced investigators listening to the voice of the PA Deputy Grodin on the You Tube recording would hear what I heard: A man running a bluff and running it badly. Unless he was incompetent (or under pressure?), Grodin would surely know the limits of his authority, and would also know, as has been admitted, that being accompanied by the police was unusual. He would have known that he had no authority to enter Erik�s home despite his bluff to the contrary, to say nothing of seizing his property, and would have understood that he could never, absent committing blatant perjury on an affidavit, have obtained a warrant. Realistically, he would likely have had no idea how to find and complete an affidavit to obtain a warrant as this is, in all probability, not a usual requirement of his daily duties.

The police would know how to obtain a warrant. They would know without a doubt that they had no legitimate reason and no lawful authority for a search and that obtaining a warrant would require a perjured affidavit, an original affidavit bearing their false assertions and an officer�s signature that would be on file with the court, difficult or impossible to control. In addition, as previously mentioned, the warrant return would have to specify each item seized which would then have to be entered into the police evidence system. All or any of these documents, if indicative of perjury or any other crime, would point directly at them and could lead to dismissal, prosecution and incarceration.

So why did the police contact the PA�s Office? Why did they enlist their aid? Why were they desperate to enter Erik�s home and seize property despite knowing that Sterner had joint tenancy and that they had no reason to be there and no lawful authority to conduct a search?

Part of the answer is suggested by the fact that after illegally searching the house and illegally removing property, they changed the locks and kept the key, locking Sterner out of her home until Kevin Scott was able to obtain the key at least a day later. The services of the PA�s office and the locksmith cost Erik�s family hundreds of dollars. Scott�s family were billed for the arguably illegal actions of PA Deputy Grodin and the Metro Police. Why did they believe it necessary to keep Sterner out of her home, to have unrestricted, unobserved time alone in that home before she was allowed to return to it?

It is interesting, and another potential irony in a case rife with ironies, that Nevada Law provides a direct and specific means of addressing at least part of what appears to be improper conduct by Clark county authorities:

�����" NRS 253.091 �Reports to and investigations by board of county commissioners.

����� 1. �The board of county commissioners shall:

����� (a) Establish regulations for the form of any reports made by the public administrator.

����� (b) Review reports submitted to the board by the public administrator.

����� (c) Investigate any complaint received by the board against the public administrator.

����� 2. �The board of county commissioners may at any time investigate any estate for which the public administrator is serving as administrator.
����� (Added to NRS by 1979, 992; A 2007, 2489)"

It would seem that apart from considering changes in the rules and procedures of Coroner�s Inquests, the Clark County Board of County Commissioners have the opportunity to investigate and clarify additional anomalies in a case that may come to embody the term. If they hope to limit the legal liability of Clark County, they may be wise to conduct a prompt, thorough and ethically pristine investigation.

In Update 7, which will be posted soon, we�ll provide analysis that may serve to explain why the Police were so anxious to search Erik�s Scott�s home. We�ll also analyze a number of other interesting, and troubling, developments.

� Hide "The Erik Scott Case: Update 6--Las Vegas Follies Redux"

---

Erik Scott was murdered by people in authority. Now his murderers are using their authority to get away with it. They deserve to die.

posted by ccoffer at October 15, 2010 07:11 AM

---

Looks to me that there is enough evidence here for a federal investigation to take over the case

posted by Rich at October 15, 2010 09:25 AM

---

Evidence can move two ways. The police may have been looking for evidence of the drugs Scott was using and they may as well have been planting evidence that can be used later against his girlfriend to coerce her testimony in a plea bargain.

If you already believe the police capable of murder, negligent homicide and robbery, evidence tampering is a small additional step.

They are not just in CYA mode. They seriously believe protecting the officers is more important than justice.

posted by Professor Hale at October 15, 2010 10:37 AM

---

Professor:

But why? Why this big collusion after the 'no true bill' inquest? Why would anyone risk a career or criminal charges when all that's left is a civil trial, in which any judgment is payed by the taxpayers anyway?

Do you think the Officers will not receive qualified immunity for monetary judgments?

I would understand a CYA mindset before the inquest, but now?

posted by Buck Turgidson at October 15, 2010 04:09 PM

---

UNBELIEVABLE.

Grodin is a whore.

he broke all public trust to be someones minion. why? why put himself in what could amount to a criminal position? what could they possibly said to him or gave him for him to whore himself in this manor?

and grodin if by chance you ever read this blog.
*spit* thats right I called you a whore.

posted by rumcrook at October 15, 2010 06:07 PM

---

and why is there no investigative reporters hounding this guy with a camera crew? asking him who the officers were that went into the apartment that day?

what a travesty. we are certainly witnessing the erosion of what made this land great.

posted by rumcrook at October 15, 2010 06:10 PM

---

Buck, take another look at the chronology. The PA and accompanying officer began efforts to enter before Scott had reached ambient temperature. It doesn't look like anything but a panicked attempt to find evidence of criminal activite to justify what even the LVPD must have known was an unjustifed shooting.

Most of the time, stupid or arrogant or useless acts by bureaucrats can be explained by bureaucratic inertia or institutional incompetence or overzealousness. Had the PA been acting on his own, that would have been my preferred interpreation. The involvement of a police officer, and the disregarding of the explicit instructions of Scott's resident girlfriend, raise all kinds of stink.

posted by Steve Skubinna at October 15, 2010 08:31 PM

---

Actually I was about to ask the same thing. Who were the officers that were with the PA and what was their relationship with those at the shooting. This case get stranger and stranger every day.

posted by James S. at October 15, 2010 08:44 PM

---

The head of Metro, the Clark County Sheriff, is up for reelection. His opponent's web site is http://bischforsheriff.com/

posted by Kevin at October 15, 2010 11:49 PM

---

VEGAS IS CORRUPT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IN MANY WAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE KNEW THIS ALREADY, ERIK SCOTTS MURDER, I TRULY BELIEVE WILL HELP GET THE CORRUPTION OUT OF VEGAS!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted by heather at October 16, 2010 01:29 AM

---

Im glad I wasn't the only one outraged by the message on youtube. My immediate thought went right to the 380 also. I can't imagine being in Ms. Sterner's shoes.... she witnesses her fiance murdered right in front of her and to top it off the same people responsible have entered her home and changed the locks? God no wonder she didn't show up at the inquest. No possible way she would feel safe and secure.

posted by willis at October 16, 2010 03:59 AM

---

I'm sure, that as soon as the detectives arrived on scene and started to investigste. They realized right away it was a bad shoot, and probably called a higher up(?). Why do you think they kept Sam on scene for 4 or more hours. First they searched her vehicle, then they BROKE into her house. There is a huge contraversy about what was taken. The Scott's insist Erik never carried a second gun, and I believe them 100%. After watching the entire inquest a couple of times, I find no fault with Sam not testifing in that enviroment. First, she wasn't properly served. They would have made her look like Tokyo Rose, with no attorney to call into check, the line of questioning, they could have said anything to her in any leading fashion they chose.

It's obvious that this is a cover-up all the way to the top, and the DA and medical examiner are in on it. The worst part of this whole deal besides Erik's death, is they seem to think we here in Las Vegas are to stupid to see thru this or that we are so mindless, we'll believe anything they want to tell us!

The Sheriff, DA, PA,and any others involved need to GO!!

posted by Jvh at October 16, 2010 09:17 AM

---

Still makes me sick to my stomach, all this cover-up. Makes me think that cops in the US should be like the bobbies in Britain. No guns. If they can't be responsible with them they can't have them.

posted by Ron at October 16, 2010 09:57 AM

---

Starting to sound like Ruby Ridge and Waco.

posted by David at October 16, 2010 03:32 PM

---

Mike,

I commented at length back on update 4, and was castigated for saying that I was witholding judgement on the officers invoived in shooting Erik. I have now had time to digest updates 5 and 6, and I have to say that what you have relayed in those updates is very disturbing. I could comment more on the shooting itself, but I wanted to address the unusual acts you have attributed to Deputy PA Grodin.

In Oklahoma, we have no position directly correspoding to that of the PA, but in reading the law as you have set forth here, I think I have an understanding of the function of the PA's office.

I cannot think of any legitimate reason for the Deputy PA to overstep his bounds in the way presented here, nor can I think of any legitimate reason for the police to enlist the PA's office to gain entry to Erik's condo. The fact that the PA described Erik's girlfriend as "stonewalling" him raises some serious suspicions. If the PA had already contacted her and knew that she lived in the condo, thus having "joint tenancy" why would he attempt an end-run around her and try to get permission from Erik's brother? This would flat-out seem to be beyond the scope of his authority, for the law as quoted PROHIBITS such action by the PA's office.

I am puzzled as to what the police hoped to gain. As you have stated there was no reason to look for evidence of a crime, and in fact anything gained by the police in such an entry would be "fruit of the poisonous tree". There could not even be an exception in that it was discovered by a non-police entity and turned over to them inasmuch as they ACCOMPANIED Grodin, let alone the fact that he was clearly acting as an agent for the police, which is the same as if the police did it themselves.

What I don't understand is why involve the PA's office at all? If you are going to make an illegal entry, why drag another agency into the mess? Unless the police somehow felt that the presence of the PA added some type of an air of legitimacy to the unauthorized and warrantless entry.

Also, is there ANY accounting of what was seized? If so, who took custody of the seized items, the PA's office or the police. If the police did, is that a normal state of affairs in cases handled by the PA's office? Has Sterner been able to account for missing items that were not included on the list of seized items, and has the seized property been returned to any of the family?

You are right in stating that the civil trial will in all likelihood answer many more questions than the Coroner's Inquest did. As described, the Coroner's Inquest seems set up more like a Grand Jury, with only the prosecution presenting evidence. A situation which resulted in the quote regarding a Grand Jury indictment "you can indict a ham sandwich". The coroner's inquest would seem to provide the same lopsided result.

Having worked at both large and small agencies, what you say regarding patrol officers and search warrants is true. Even in the small agency I once worked in (which had only about 36 officers), only the detectives wrote up search warrant affidavits.

The additional information you have provided troubles me to no end. Some of what it says to me is that what was, without a doubt, a mishandled situation from the git-go resulting in a confrontation to which the officers reacted poorly (although I tend to think without malice aforthought) may, after the fact, have grown into a major criminal conspiracy.

I look forward to your 7th installment which you have described as both interesting and troubling, because I'm getting that same sick feeling I got when the news broke here locally of the Federal investigation which has ensnared a number of officers that I thought I knew (but obviously didn't). The more I learn about not so much the shooting, but the aftermath, I'm beginning to think that the LVMPD could stand to be looked into by the Feds also.

posted by Montie at October 17, 2010 08:55 PM

---

JVH,

I'm curious about your comment that Erik's family insisted that he never carried a second gun. I don't for one minute doubt their veracity, but would he necessarily have told them that he carried a backup?

Most trainers these days recommend it, but is there something in the Nevada concealed carry permit law that prohibits the carrying of a backup gun? Most cops I know do so, and so do a number of friend of mine who carry on permits.

posted by Montie at October 17, 2010 09:07 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:26 PM

---

So first the city of Las Vegas murders a small business owner in broad daylight in front of dozens of bystanders, and then they break and enter into his home in order to loot valuables that may be present (by their own admission that's what they were looking to do)?

Would have expected something like that in Mexico City or Harare.

posted by JTW at October 18, 2010 03:53 AM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Sorry, that's an urban legend. I've heard it many times over the years, about several different presidents.

posted by wolfwalker at October 14, 2010 10:06 PM

---

Yes this is an "urban" legend. But the fact that it exists in any form, shows how little practical education exists in most "urban" areas.

posted by Rubber_Ducky at October 15, 2010 05:42 AM

---

Since the cattle gaurds left western kansas the beer joints are almost empty.

posted by bman at October 15, 2010 04:25 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:26 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

This video must be attracting attention because YouTube has stopped the view counts.

posted by David DeGerolamo at October 13, 2010 02:59 PM

---

I am so sorry - I couln't watch all of the video. I had to go wrap my head in duct tape or else it would have exploded. For the life of me I can not understand how anybody in NC4 could vote for him other than his mother and his wife! I bet if given the chance his hound dog would vote against him.

GOOD LUCK NC4 - you have a clear choice!!!

posted by mixitup at October 13, 2010 04:49 PM

---

mixitup,
The problem is that all the politicians are like this guy. They just don't get it. Maybe something is wrong with with water or air in DC that makes these jerks completely dense when it comes to the wishes of the country. Lets get rid of all of them!!

posted by David at October 13, 2010 07:35 PM

---

It's good for the opposition that he spelt out the oppositions views, the republican was probably going to skip that smarty thinky stuff and just tell the audience "I'm you", like a retard.

Worse yet, what the democrat instills in his opposition most likely isn't even there and the republican candidate is just a typical RINO.

posted by NAC at October 13, 2010 10:59 PM

---

I L O V E the "we can't deport them" line of reasoning. No, you can't. You also can't go around and collect income taxes from a hundred million or so American tax payers.

But.

You CAN make them pay voluntarily -- as they do -- and we can make illegal aliens WANT to go home on their own, just as they CAME here -- ON THEIR OWN.

We didn't IMPORT them! So, we don't have to DE-port them. We just need to make it difficult for them to stay. And, Congressman Price? The back of the line is in MEXICO!

posted by Bill Smith at October 14, 2010 12:37 AM

---

I can't find anything in the news or pseudo-news on the internet about Americans being sold as slaves in Mexico. Can anyone offer a credible source on this?

posted by Sol at October 14, 2010 10:31 AM

---

Sol, I was wondering about that, too. Putting that in there weakens the credibility of whoever put this together.

posted by MikeM_inMd at October 15, 2010 10:50 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:26 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

What? You mean it's not Bush's fault?

posted by zhombre at October 12, 2010 06:03 PM

---

That blog had to be the biggest bunch of crap that I have ever read. That is of course if you missed the comments which had to be some to the nuttest people on the web.

I must agree with the woman in the racism is more evident and pervasive in the US than ever. Most of it is coming from the White House. When the president of the US indicates that civil rights laws are only for blacks and that it is ok to discriminate against whites then you have reversed 50 years of effort to unite the US. Then when the first black president makes every effort to turn the country into a socialist or Comme utopia, then the people will rebel and the presidents race will be used to denigrate him and thus further divide the people of the US.

Further, this woman goes on about discrimination in the 60's in which she felt uneasy. Yet I have experienced first hand discrimination in 2010 from black and hispanics. This is because of the attitude of this president.

Hopefully, if the Reps get control of congress they will begin a bill of impeachment.

posted by David at October 12, 2010 08:26 PM

---

Waaaaaiiiit a second! I supported the Tea Party because I am taxed enough already, and I think that the government is spending way too much, and is way too big.

But I had no idea that we supported suicides in NJ and gang rapes of Mexicans. When did THAT get put in our charter?

/sarc

posted by Kevin at October 12, 2010 08:38 PM

---

Is the link broken? Couldn't get access.

posted by TimothyJ at October 13, 2010 10:07 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:26 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Need someone remind her that the Union army defeated the south and enforced Lincoln's proclamation using... guns?

posted by Phelps at October 11, 2010 07:12 PM

---

While Keka stupidly let the bumper sticker spin her into fantasy land, the bumper sticker was petty and provocative.

Plus, the bumper sticker neglects that there were plenty of other races who built the country, and plenty of people who didn't wield guns.

A better sticker:

This country was built on the freedom to use guns.

posted by mockmook at October 11, 2010 07:35 PM

---

Pithier:

This country was built on liberty and guns.

posted by mockmook at October 11, 2010 07:41 PM

---

I have never been a "love it or leave it" person. But I have always pondered those who appear to hate or fear the US and who remain. Precious little Keka and her precious little puppy and the rest of her precious little menangerie need to sit down with a World Book Almanac and pore over the nations listed, finding the one most suited for her delicate sensibilities. Surely there must be many countries just oozing social justice and harmony and populated by many fewer white men.

Or she could just be honest with herself and admit she's full of it, and that this pissy screed is just laying the groundwork for explaining the debacle she and her compatriots are facing this November. The majority of the voters have finally figured Obama out, and nobody likes finding out he's been lied to along with being cheated and robbed. All she's doing here is setting up the "racist America" strawman that the left reluctantly and temporarily set aside.

Of course, expecting them to retire the strawman permanently is unreasonable. Whenever they suffer rejection at the polls it's dragged out and paraded - shoved into our faces, in fact. If only they would decide that we're not worth it, that they are wasting their time lecturing us on our sins, and that we won't let them fundamentally transform America into a European style social democracy. If only they would accept that, then perhaps they'd learn French or Spanish or Dutch and buy one way tickets out of here.

You don't need to love America to live here. You don't even need to like it much. But if you despise it as much as the hard left does, and if it fills you with the awful dread poor sad Keka is experiencing, then maybe this isn't the right country for you. Why not find the ocuntry that most closelt matches your ideal, and go there instead of trying to shoehorn this one into that mold?

posted by Steve Skubinna at October 11, 2010 08:01 PM

---

Circa five hundred,I presume mostly black, are killed in Chicago every year, because a stupid white man, Richard Daley, degreed that only criminals and his political patrons can carry guns. That is the price of victim disarmament.

The fact is that free men are free to carry guns. Serfs are not. Keka is content to be and remain a serf. Are you?

posted by DavidL at October 11, 2010 09:30 PM

---

Haha. I posted roughly the same diatribe on my blog. She practicies justifiable bigotry. For her, its ok to use the same tactics of the people she's condemning, because of a history of subjugation. And the fact that people are dissagreeing with a president on the issues, and not because he happens to be black, is threatening to her. It is removing her race card, and she is threatened by that.
http://thebustednut.net/2010/10/11/keka-of-kekas-blog-is-a-bigot/

posted by JakeG at October 11, 2010 11:45 PM

---

Sigh.. I didn't have the heart to post a comment there and possibly disillusion those delicate trembling liberals.. but I wish to point out that many thousands of white- and black- men with guns fought and died to hold the Union together, and free the slaves in the process. They fought the Southern Democrats and after the Civil Wat these same Democrats formed the KKK and went on a reign of terror against whites and blacks alike and in due time they killed the son of the teacher of 'Keka'.. It was white Democrats wearing hoods not tea party folk who did that.

posted by S. Wolf at October 12, 2010 12:07 AM

---

When my family arrived here (both sides) everybody used guns. Period. So? I am not Tea Party Member. I am a Tar and Feather Party type. Now get sick and loose your appetite.

posted by Odins Acolyte at October 12, 2010 10:19 AM

---

Uncomfortable though it might be in the present age, the bumper sticker is mostly right. I leave the US every few months for one reason or another. I have always been happy to return, even if I was unhappy with some imperfection in the politics here from time to time. The problem with morons like Keka is they read too many books but never see what the rest of the world is like first hand. If they did, they would be relieved at living here .As for her contempt for the bumper owner, Voltair said that "history was a trick played on the dead". In Keka's case she might as well join the tricked. I would feel sorry for her, but unfortunately she can vote, so she is just another liability I have to accept but would rather not.

posted by mytralman at October 14, 2010 09:20 PM

---

Sounds like a joke:

A Conservative Woman and a Liberal Woman see a bumper sticker that says
"THIS COUNTRY WAS BUILT BY WHITE MEN WITH GUNS" and are horribly offended.

The Liberal goes home, mopes, and finds solace in googling pictures off the internet and blogging about them.

The Conservative woman goes home and prints out a bumper sticker for her car.
"This Country Was Built by Women With Guns Too."

The reaction shows the mindset: Liberals Whine, Conservatives take Action.

posted by Georg Felis at October 14, 2010 10:52 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:26 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Don't let the social cons ruin the small government movement currently underway. Small government and less taxes are good for the country. Picking on gays is not. The social cons are as bad as liberals at trying to control people.

posted by tm at October 11, 2010 09:20 AM

---

@CY and TM

/agree

posted by Dan Irving at October 11, 2010 09:43 AM

---

The question becomes this:

Would gays in New York rather pay higher taxes and have larger government but have the governor march in a pride parade?

Or would they rather have lower taxes, jobs and smaller government but without the governor marching in a parade?

Their choices but either way the voters will get the government they deserve.

posted by datechguy at October 11, 2010 09:46 AM

---

I think sexual preference is a private matter. Those who air it publicly are what is referred to in my upbringing as 'lewd'. That is the real problem with the whole gay movement. It is lewd. Stay away from my bedroom and I stay away from yours. There. Problem solved.

posted by Odins Acolyte at October 11, 2010 12:05 PM

---

It is further incongruous that a "small govt" candidate would use the power of government to force this issue either way. The whole point is supposed to be less government intrusion into private lives, not more.

Why can't a political candidate ever say, "that issue does not fall within the power of the office to which I aspire"?

posted by Professor Hale at October 11, 2010 12:27 PM

---

I doubt this politician has any problem societally/legally with who or what anyone is ATTRACTED to or what they WANT to do to them: same or other gender, child or adult, married or unmarried, animal or human, pain or pleasure based; I'm betting he, like me and many others, have a big problem with people legally getting to ACT on that attraction when morally they should not (and legally in still a few instances they can be punished for such immoral acts). This includes adults enticing/molesting minors (pedophilia), married people carrying on sensuously with anyone beyond the only spouse, anyone committing sensuous acts with animals, anyone participating in human physical or psychological pain for sensual gratification, or anyone of one gender sensuously enticing or acting with anyone of the same gendor. While the people who want to do these things, which admittedly includes almost everyone in some way at some time or other, know the desire and the behaviour is morally prohibited, they do it anyway, demand freedom to do these things, and in many cases insist that they be celebrated in doing them or seek to punish those who won't celebrate the immorality. I think for many, knowing something is immoral, then asserting their selfish desires over the morality they know, and the illicit thrill from that, is a big part of the motivation for the immoral action. Barring the few genuine sociopaths, pretty much everyone knows what genuine, physically and morally safe for all, sexual morality is if they divorce the discussion from their personal lusts. As the Bible points out, broad and easy is the path to destruction. It is always the easy choice to do what we selfishly want. Then we inherit the Bible corollary for those on the broad path, it eventually becomes a great burden because "the way of the transgressor is hard". The flip side: �For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." And "A highway will be there, a roadway, and it will be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean will not travel on it, but it will be for him who walks that way, and fools will not wander on it." Through the narrow way, a life of serving God first, comes an easier, light burden, and if you get over the hard hump of doing the right thing at the point of decision, the follow-up IS easy. No more lies to cover up lies, no more enslavement to (and idolatry for) a particularly set of immoralities.

Repent and believe; come to Christ for salvation and walk after Him; God is patient, but life is short, and then comes judgment.

And even beforehand, the way of the transgressor is hard. Selfishness, including sexual selfishness, is harmful to others and yourself.

posted by RepentNLive! at October 11, 2010 03:02 PM

---

I don't get the gay thing either. For that matter, I don't understand why we have politicians going on about moral concerns. I know a few politicians and consider their morals sadly lacking. But, as many of you have voiced, it seems that both parties are intent on telling us what to do. Your only choice is what aspect of your life that you want them to control.

The other consideration. Our country is going down the tubes with the gas on. Yet here is some idiot concerned about marriage. Why doesn't he focus on getting the government out of business so it can grow and create jobs? Why doesn't he rant about the size of all government from city to state to Federal? Why doen't he go on about reducing taxes? Instead he talks about gay marriage. Actually this is the only thing that government can control. Everything else seems out of their hands and spiraling out of control.

posted by David at October 11, 2010 03:08 PM

---

He didn't say it. It was in the written speech, which was leaked.

posted by Pandora at October 11, 2010 04:22 PM

---

Oops; hit post too fast.

As it was "distributed", not spoken, the most objectionable part omitted, I fail to see the objection to his opinion that homosexuality should not be presented as nothing more than an equally-fine "alternative" lifestyle. This is not an out-of-the-mainstream opinion and needs to be said in view of the mainstreaming and normalizing of it to kids in almost every venue.

posted by Pandora at October 11, 2010 04:35 PM

---

repentnlive,
You need some help. As to morals, that is a persoanl thing. Just because you can find a document that is against a particular act does not mean that the rest of us should be held to that "moral" imperative. I find absolutely nothing wrong with sex. I do not see that it is a moral issue unless your actions are endangering others. That is the attitude our government should have. After all, if I adher to the religious dogma with the expectation that I will have a reward in the after life (as many do), wouldn't it be better if I follow that code voluntarily instead of having it enforced on me by the government?

posted by David at October 11, 2010 06:08 PM

---

I can't accept that sexual orientation is always hardwired. I don't accept that there is one "cause," or explanation for it if you prefer. The gay lobby, such as it is, dearly want to find the genetic or other determinant in order to say "See, it isn't our fault!" The anti-gay lobby would also like that, so perhgaps it could be cured.

And those in the middle would like them both to shut up. I don't want to listen to people condemning homosexuality, since it appears ot me to be as pirvate as one could get. But neither do I appreciate the childish exhibitionism of (some) of the gays. You really want me to believe that being gay requires on eot minch around wearing pancake makeup and a feather boa while screeching in falsetto?

No, that's just stupid, whomever you want to have sex with.

I have known many gays who were well adjusted, and aside from that small datum were mainstream and "ordinary." I have known many that had serious personality problems, that appeared to be linked with their sexual preference. I have also known some who, out of the blue, said "Hell with this, I don't want to do it anymore" and turned hetero. And of course it's a certain bet that I have known many gays whom I did not know were gay. And why would it matter?

From this I conclude that some gays are wired that way, some are gay because it's how they deal with, or at least express a personal problem, and some are because for whatever reason they chose to be.

In any event I believe that it is an issue that ought to remian private, and nobody else's business. I would like that courtesy from both sides of the argument.

posted by Steve Skubinna at October 11, 2010 08:12 PM

---

@Professor Hale 'It is further incongruous that a "small govt" candidate would use the power of government to force this issue either way. The whole point is supposed to be less government intrusion into private lives, not more.'

And yet that's not at all what that speech says, is it? So why do you interpret it that way? There is no suggestion in what's quoted that Paladino wants to use the power of government to intrude into private lives. In fact, what he is suggesting is that it is not the role of government to promote certain lifestyles.

Using the power of government to force certain attitudes on the citizenry is what the left does.

'Why can't a political candidate ever say, "that issue does not fall within the power of the office to which I aspire"?'

Because they're all power hungry. It doesn't occur to them that they are our servants, because we haven't treated them that way. Throw the bums out more regularly, and perhaps they'll get the message.

In the end, the citizens of New York will decide if Paladino is palatable.

posted by Paul Schmehl at October 11, 2010 09:12 PM

---

David,

We can all use a little help. In this case, please help me understand your assertions. The first seems to be that "morals" are personal and therefore should not be under legal control/sanction. Yet behavior is routinely either legally restrained or allowed by legal systems, based on the "morals" of those in authority (in our case, our representatives selected by our votes). We do this with a gamut of behavior, from murder to jaywalking (even if, hey, jaywalking and maybe getting run down is "my right to chose"), if we think it wrong and harmful (even if just as a bad example, e.g., just one person arrested for public drunkenness or indecent exposure) we legislate some moral behavior. All such criminal law and regulation "legislates morality".

Mr. Paladino seems okay with some legislation that restrains some activity; in his case here, government promotion of homosexuality to children. We have had much more restrictive laws for most of US history (e.g., sodomy acts.) Mr. Paladino is not going so far as I would (restraining homosexual acts criminally); he just doesn't want it constantly promoted by governmental authority such as schools to kids, and to have our goverment facilitate "recruiting" people while young for self-destructive habits/lifestyles. Kids are impressionable, and that kind of societal blessing and encouragement to "check it out" has an impact on some people. Again, he is not advocating restraining the behavior (which I do, just as much as murder, robbery, slander, or jaywalking).

Why would I challenge you and the others here to support Mr. Paladino on this issue, or others taking a stronger stance? Because I know that the behavior offends God based on my presupposition that He exists and is exactly Who He says He is in His word, the Bible. That includes defining homosexual thoughts and acts as evil and sin. And seeing government's role to restrain evil (though not evil thoughts, that is a personal responsibility in Scripture). My post attempts to draw people to that point, and through it to the Bible, and through it, perhaps to Jesus Christ.

Second point, "nothing wrong with sex. I do not see that it is a moral issue unless your actions are endangering others." Neither do I, but I think immoral sex DOES endanger others, and therefore want such actions legally restrained. If you are diligent, you can see some complications with sex beyond traditional marriage that are potentially harmful, too.

You next point seem to be following religous dogma earning salvation if done voluntarily. Biblically, following religious dogma or obeying a law does not earn you salvation in the next life. Christians follow Christ voluntarily to please God because of the salvation given them that was earned by Christ. We can never work well enough to earn salvation.

But more to your point, whether your forced obedience to a legislated morality/legal code you don't always agree with is voluntary or not, the code will restrain many from damaging others (even if not voluntary on their part) by incenting them to restrain themselves even though they want to entice others into sharing their immmoral/illegal act. You argue "no harm done", but the only sex act that generally impacts only one person is masturbation. All others have some impact on others. You think that impact good if participated in freely, but you limit your definition of harm by making that assumption. Maybe you think there has to be an immediate harm such as obvious loss of health or wealth. Well, some behavior is restrained for "the good of society/most all people" (what morals are all about), whether traffic regulations, health codes, etc., even without an immediate, visible impact from the behavior. From unwed mothers and their children with higher crime and unemployment rates, to health (e.g., STD rates) and sanitary issues, to serious psychological problems with participants in "unusual" sex, to a lot of emotional hurt and pain as people swap live-ins in and out, the same, plus the impact on kids for adultery, major distraction from long term commitments that are beneficial to society such as careers, education, and families, etc. There are harms, and just because your situation may leave you unlikely to be impacted by them, does not give the society as a whole a pass.

So yes, some more restraint than we have today would be great. I'm not talking bedroom police (an over-exagerated, strawman arguement). But laws keeping people from behavior that is somewhat, for many, harmful, and the same behavior that most people's conscience tells them is wrong. I know this, even without Biblical wisdom, because logically if immoral sex were really totally harmless and just added fun, why isn't everyone making this the key to all their time? Work, family, public service, church, art, etc, seem to get much more time, even with the draw of immorality. Lifetimes of time. Some restraint on those unwise enough to not have figured out some of the downsides to immoral sexuality will help them exercise some self-control that helps all generally. On the whole, even if a little limited to sex-obsessed, a good thing.

Mr. Paladino's restrait is really only a "yellow light" when a "red light" is needed. But that is better than his opponant, who wants the Obama "child safety" czar, Mr. NAMBLA, Kevin Jennings, teaching your kids, nieces, and nephews, well before puberty, about sex that is all harmless, fun, different, and interesting. If you want Mr. NAMBLA, under the guise of "safe schools," pushing and encouraging homosexual acts by minors, even pre-pubescent kids, well, I guess Mr. Paladino will not get your vote.

posted by RepentNLive! at October 11, 2010 11:47 PM

---

He's wrong when he says it's not a successful option, most of the gay-dudes I know are extremely successful, and quite a few are NOT Lefties, even out here on the West Coast. Even Ann Coulter said it at Homocon, that gays are among the wealthiest demographic groups in the country. Hasn't he heard about a little thing called "Gentrification."

posted by DirtCrashr at October 12, 2010 02:57 PM

---

repent,
Funny, I can see the same issue with religion that you do with the choices of others. I guess we should outlaw religion.

I really think that the attitude of the religious right is the same as the attitude of the liberals. The only difference is the aspect of control desired. Both being bad.

posted by David at October 12, 2010 03:59 PM

---

Don't think he won many converts from the Westboro Baptist Church. They're Democrats, with a long history of supporting Democrats. (Wierdly enough)

posted by Georg Felis at October 14, 2010 10:54 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:26 PM

---

� Hide Comments

What, by the way, does "inalienable" mean? Most dictionaries would indicate that it means something like this: "Not transferrable to another," or "cannot be repudiated," but in the language of the Founders and of our founding documents, the word is most often coupled with an equally important word and is rendered as "inalienable rights." Inalienable rights are rights that are the inheritance of each human being by virtue of being born a human being. They are bestowed by our Creator. Because they are not granted by governments, they cannot be taken away by governments. The Declaration of Independence makes explicit only three "unalienable" rights: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," but makes clear that these are not the only inalienable rights.

Notice that "Life" is the first of the three Thomas Jefferson chose to make explicit. This is important in that if there is no inalienable right to life, your life is forfeit to any government that chooses to take it. It should also be noted that even if the laws and legal traditions of the state do recognize a right to self defense, if the state denies citizens the most effective means to exercise that right, or so restricts its exercise as to make it impractical in application, there is little difference to the individual between that state and one that recognizes no right at all. In addition, if there is no right to self defense, no right to mere survival, your life is forfeit to the whims of those cruel and strong enough to take it. If this is the case, can any other right, inalienable or otherwise, truly be said to matter? Of course, it may reasonably be argued that if a right is not inalienable, it is merely a privilege to be granted and rescinded by the state, but do we really want the state to treat our lives with the caring, efficiency and humanity employed by the EPA, the IRS, or in the regulation of our privilege to drive?

These ideas did not originate with Jefferson in the late 1700's. Thomas Cahill, in his insightful book "The Gifts of the Jews," suggests that the paramount gift of the Jews, dating back to the time of Abraham, was the idea that each individual life has value and that each is precious and worthy of salvation. This idea is easily recognizable as one of the foundations of Christianity. However, ultimately all such discussions are about power and the proper balance of power between the individual and the state. John Locke (1632-1704) was a proponent of natural rights, which are rights established by nature--by nature's God--and are therefore inalienable. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) tried to reconcile the inherent conflict between a society full of individuals possessed of competing, inalienable rights and the need of humans beings to live together in communities through the "Social Contract," the proposition that in order to live together, individuals must surrender some degree of absolute autonomy while still retaining certain inalienable rights, the most important of these being life, liberty and property. This is the balancing of power that truly democratic republics perform each day, and that, until recently when it took a sharp leftward turn toward totalitarian power, America performed far better than any other society.

The Social Contract is part of the foundation of our government. While we retain inalienable rights, they are not absolute, yet can only be infringed in limited fashion by due process of law under the rule of law. When the Founders made references to God, they were not merely expressing personal religious conviction, but participating in a debate millennia old over the nature of God and man and man's natural rights. They well knew the work of Locke and Rousseau and were certainly influenced by them, as are we all whether we know it or not.

This is, of necessity, a whirlwind tour of issues that have filled hundreds of volumes over the centuries. But without a basic understanding, it's difficult to appreciate the gravity of the question that began this essay: Do human beings have an inalienable right to self defense?

Let us add a second, related question: Does evil exist? The answer to this question represents a fundamental dividing line between conservatives and socialists (for that is what the contemporary Democratic Party has, sadly, become). Socialists believe that human beings are inherently racist, sexist, and a variety of other ists, but are perfectible. This perfection can be reached if only there is sufficient (absolute or near absolute) governmental power and the right kinds of laws and regulations to make people behave in appropriate ways, to perfect them for their own good. These laws and regulations will be composed and enforced by a small class of elite socialists who are already, by virtue of their education, sophistication, beliefs and highly attuned sense of social justice, perfected. Hence, the only true evil is resistance to their evolved social consciousness. Inalienable rights do not exist. The only rights are those allowed at any given moment by the state, and in this polity, rights actually exist not at all and are reduced to the reality and force of mere privileges. Religion, with its quaint, superstitious adherence to the doctrine of an eternal battle between good and evil, is just that, quaint and superstitious, and when it is politically useful, dangerous in its resistance to progressive socialist enlightenment, which is always ongoing because it can never be falsified. If perfection has not been reached, it is only because the unenlightened resist and because insufficient socialism has been applied. Because man is always in the necessary process of being perfected by his betters, neither inalienable rights nor adherence to a moldy, faded, yellowing document written by privileged white men centuries ago can be allowed to stand in the way of the brave, inevitable march of socialist progress. The greatest weakness of socialist thought and policy is always a fundamental misunderstanding, even willful ignorance, of human nature. That, and as Margaret Thatcher said, you always run out of other people's money.

Conservatives have no doubt of the existence of evil or of its eternal work in the world. They overwhelmingly embrace Christian theology and its fundamental understanding of men as fallen sinners who can never attain perfection on Earth. Mankind cannot be perfected, yet the social contract works best when he has the greatest possible freedom and autonomy, still consequences for misbehavior must be made swift and certain and must be justly applied while upholding the essential dignity and worth of the individual. Thus do Conservatives accept the necessity of the social contract, of the equality before the law of all men, of the rule of law, and of a supreme law of the land, the Constitution, which may not and should not change, as the Founders put it, for light and transient reasons, because the fundamental nature of human beings does not change. For conservatives, any balance of power that favors the state at the expense of the inalienable rights of the individual is illegitimate, tyrannical and must be resisted, and if necessary, overthrown. In this understanding, Conservatives are not at all radical and merely adopt the thinking of the Founders and the text and intent of the foundational documents of the Republic including The Federalist Papers, The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. Socialists tend to reject all of these documents, or to so twist their clear intent and meaning as to render them self-contradictory and meaningless.

If there is no right to self defense, are you, gentle soul, truly willing to meekly surrender your life to anyone cruel enough to take it? Will you, sensitive, caring socialist, allow your life to be taken to fully live your convictions? Do you believe that right and sufficient law and regulation will eliminate any tendency toward human evil, and that the power of the state will protect you and those you hold dear? Would you truly do nothing to prevent the loss of your own life? The loss of the life of your spouse? Your children? Is your life of so little value and the value of the lives of evil brutes so great? Truly?

You may not believe that evil exists or that it can possibly interrupt your life, but to paraphrase an aphorism attributed to many, you may not be interested in evil, but evil is interested in you. As a student of history, as a veteran of nearly 20 years of service in police work, I have no doubt that evil exists and that any one of us may meet it, in human form, at any time as I so often have. Had I been unaware of its existence or unwilling to acknowledge it, I would not have survived. Hundreds of the wounded, maimed and dead with whom I have been involved would attest, if they could, to that reality. They would also attest to the fact that good intentions, a life lived virtuously and enlightened social consciousness are not proof against evil, but serve only to encourage its propagation.

But surely the police will protect me? It's their job and they are professionals. It is surely one of the great ironies of all time that socialists tend to hate the police, regarding them as barely literate, stupid, racist, sexist, (add your favorite "ist" here) brutalizers, resist paying them more, yet simultaneously expect them to protect their very lives and the lives of those they love. An even greater irony is that the police have no duty to protect any individual citizen. None.

In June, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales. Gonzales defied a restraining order and kidnapped his three daughters, ages 7-10, from his estranged wife. Gonzales killed the girls and committed suicide by cop by shooting up a police station. The police were called when the girls were kidnapped, but did nothing until they were forced to respond to Gonzales' gunfire, but by then the girls were dead. Gonzales followed not long after. Cold comfort may be found in such situations only in the belief that Gonzales' final destination was 180� different than that of his innocent children. In handing down this decision, the Court relied upon decades of precedence that holds that the police have a duty only to deter and investigate crime for the benefit of the public at large. They have no duty to protect the life or property of any individual. Even though they did nothing to assist Mrs. Gonzales who so piteously cried out to them for help, even though they did nothing to save the lives of her children, they could not and cannot be held liable.

This might seem outrageous and unjust, but it is rational and absolutely necessary. Most people would be utterly shocked to discover how few police officers are patrolling their community at any time of the night or day. It is practically impossible for the police to guarantee protection to anyone, and if they could be successfully sued for failure to render such protection, what city could possibly afford a police force? Who would volunteer to become a police officer knowing financial ruin awaited them at any moment? Police agencies are always understaffed, always. They staff their shifts with the most officers when most are needed: Evenings in general and Friday and Saturday nights in particular. In smaller communities across America, only two or three officers may be patrolling between 6 AM and 6 PM, often, fewer. In semi rural or rural areas, the nearest available officer may be an hour or more away at top, lights and siren, speed. The police love to catch bad guys in the act. They love to stop rapists, killers, child molesters, you name it, they love to stop and catch them, but there are very, very few police officers, more than enough bad guys to go around, and many, many of us. This is the nature of reality, of human beings.

Police officers all know several common axioms: "Call for the police, call for an ambulance and call for a pizza. See which one shows up first." They know that all too often, it won't be the police. In many urban areas, even 911 calls are often left unanswered or put on hold, so great is the volume of emergency calls and so few are the police. Police lore is full of true stories of citizen's panicked 911 calls that didn't get through, were hung up, were ignored, improperly dispatched or just couldn't be handled because of a lack of manpower, resulting in beatings, robbery, rape, mayhem, torture, even murder. The police have another common axiom, which, like the first, they know to be true, but which makes them cringe nonetheless: "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." This too is the nature of reality, of human beings. Ask any experienced police officer if evil exists, but not if you really don't want to hear the answer.

So. Evil exists. The police would love to protect you from it, but they can't and you can't sue them and win when, not if, they don't. What options remain? Gated communities? Locks? Alarm systems? If it's made by man, it can be defeated by man. Will you spend your life within that gated community, behind those locked doors with your security system engaged?

But I live in a good neighborhood! Consider the case of a car burglar I investigated. Responsible for hundreds of crimes, during his many and lengthy confessions, he told me of how he and two of his fellow burglars set out to steal the side view mirror of a vehicle by removing the entire door. As they set to work at 2 AM, the owner came home unexpectedly and they barely had time to scramble under the vehicle they had just begun to burglarize as his pickup truck pulled into the driveway, inches away. The door they intended to steal was standing open a few inches, but the man did not see it and went into his home, leaving the burglars to hastily complete their work and leave with the door.

This too, was a good neighborhood, but the story does not end here. The burglar had, only a half hour earlier, burglarized another car not far away and found, to his surprise and delight, a loaded and chambered 9mm semiautomatic handgun which he hastily stuffed into his pants, the better to play the role of the manly gangster/burglar. As the owner of the soon to be stolen car door stepped from his truck onto his driveway, mere inches away lay the burglar, hopped up on speed, the unfamiliar handgun tightly clutched in his sweating, shaking hand. The man lived only because he did not notice the open car door. The burglar was ready to shoot him; he would have shot him, a man who had no reason whatever to imagine, let alone expect, a 2 AM meeting in his own driveway with unthinking, irrational, doped up, stupid evil. Postscript: I put the burglar and many of his pals away for a long time and recovered the handgun and even the car door--absent the mirror--which I fished out of a creek near the bridge where he threw it. Sadly, it's not common for crimes of that kind to be solved and the property recovered, but that's a story for another post and another time. Evil is interested in you, and evil is always out there, watching and waiting. This too is the nature of reality and of human beings.

Even understanding all that I've presented here, at least intellectually, there will always be some portion of the public determined to cling to socialist philosophy in the expectation that their intellectual and moral superiority will, in some way, magically protect them. Or perhaps they merely have unshakeable faith in an all-powerful, benevolent state, even a state that manifestly cannot protect them, cares little or not at all for protecting any individual, and will never allow itself to be held accountable for failing to protect them. It is for these people that the term "prey" was created, and it is to them that a famous aphorism may someday apply: "A conservative is a liberal who has been robbed at gunpoint." Unfortunately, even that kind of intimate encounter with evil does not always suffice, but some are capable of reevaluating their philosophy when reality is visited upon them in ways that cannot be easily ignored.

If no inalienable right to self defense exists, what other right or privilege actually matters? What is the point of continuing education if one's life may be taken at any moment? If no right to self defense exists, there can be no crime of murder, as no life has value, value that compels society to impose the ultimate penalty for its unlawful taking. In such societies the ultimate penalty tends to be imposed for crimes against the state rather than crimes against individuals who are of value only in their utility to the state. How can anyone plan for the future if life is reduced to a state of nature where, as Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) said, life is "...solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"?

Quite unlike Socialist orthodoxy, it is not an armed society, a society where the lawful, productive and decent have the most effective means immediately at hand to protect their lives and the lives of others that is lawless, violent and dangerous, but a society where only the government has power and where only the lawless, idle and evil are armed. Contemporary America provides myriad examples of the truth of this assertion. In those states where concealed carry is common, by any honest measure, citizens are safer. In those states and cities, particularly, where honest citizens are disarmed, it is quite the opposite. Cities such as Detroit and Washington DC are commonly more dangerous than active war zones, which they closely resemble.

But let us assume that this article has, at least, persuaded you to the point that you are willing to tentatively concede that an individual, inalienable right of self defense is probably necessary. What then? The next installment of the series explores the legal, moral and spiritual issues revolving around taking the life of another, legally and illegally.

Bob adds: Pick virtually any anti-gun organization, politician, or private citizen, and you will find them sharing a message that runs counter to the views of our Founders.

• They believe that firearms in the hands of private citizens are a threat to society.
• They believe that the government should have a monopoly on the use of force.
• They abdicate responsibility for their own self protection and the protection of their rights.

We know as a matter of historical record what results when such views are allowed to take root, and those views have filled mass graves with tens of millions of bodies in the last century alone.

I would go so far to suggest that it is the responsibility of able-bodied and psychologically fit citizens to both own arms and become proficient in both their use and their limitations. Would I support a Kennesaw-style law mandating firearm ownership? No, because laws mandating gun ownership are as contrary to freedom as the laws restricting gun ownership.

Ultimately, you have to determine the worth of your life, the life of your partner or spouse, your offspring, and your neighbors. If you determine that these lives have more worth than the lives of criminals or the desires of politicians and power brokers, then you should at least consider gun ownership.

If you believe the state should be the sole source of power, that citizens should not be have rights or responsibilities, well... perhaps your funds would be better spent on a ticket out of the country, or in a life insurance plan for survivors.

� Hide "Me? Own A Gun? -- Updated"

---

very well written - will re-read again and forward to a few... er... socialists.

posted by another John Galt at October 11, 2010 09:31 AM

---

I understand that Australia outlawed gun ownership a few year ago. The consequence was a big jump in crime. Particularily gome invasion.

posted by David at October 11, 2010 03:11 PM

---

Do human beings have an inalienable right to self defense?

Yes. Further, I believe we should be able to own weapons for defense of ourselves - and others.

But I so not own a gun, or even a knife beyond some steak knives. I would not onject to my neighbors doing so, but I know myself to be a klutz and that I would not maintain one in any proper manner.

posted by John A at October 11, 2010 04:52 PM

---

...now would be a good time to be sure you have 911 on you speed dial.

I don't accept this - if one denies that one has an inherent right to self defense, then how could one insist that others have the obligation to defend one? And in fact, several court cases have demonstrated that police forces are under no obligation to protect an individual.

In fact, if one denies a right to self defense, then what rights, if any, does one have? I cannot imagine any rights at all accruing to an individual that has no right to protect himself - seriously, denying the right of self defense is in effect denying a right to exist.

In any event I consider it abject cowardice to adjure violence yet expect others to employ it on your behalf.

posted by Steve Skubinna at October 11, 2010 09:00 PM

---

"Call 911" - when seconds count, Cops are just minutes away... They come to take pictures, measure the outlines, count the cartridge casings, and file a report.

posted by DirtCrashr at October 12, 2010 03:00 PM

---

I see your blog is nice.You want a bestcar side mirrorplease visit our site.

posted by car side mirror at October 14, 2010 06:07 AM

---

I see your blog is nice.You want a bestside mirrorsplease visit our site.

posted by car side mirror at October 14, 2010 06:12 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:26 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

I have always said that Crooks and Liars is not so much a blog name as an admission of guilt.

posted by Paco at October 9, 2010 10:01 PM

---

"And so Amato does what modern American socialists do, and attempts to claim Limbaugh is racist, asserting bizarrely that his comment has something to do with the institution of slavery."

Amato is announcing to the world how ignorant he is of history. Slavery existed from ancient times, and it didn't have anything to do with race until relatively recently (a few centuries ago). Virtually all ancient civilizations practiced slavery, but their slaves were convicted criminals, conquered enemies, abandoned children, and people who couldn't pay their debts. The slaves were almost always the same race as their masters.

Slavery existed in ancient Greece and in the Roman Republic. Everyone involved was what we would call white today.

posted by Sundog at October 10, 2010 02:10 AM

---

John Amato starts out with his desired conclusion. "How dare you say there's racism in the Teabircher movement? ... Isn't what Rush Limbaugh says just soooooo true?" and attempts to prove that there is racism in the Tea Party.

Rush used the word "slave" deliberately, knowing how it would be twisted by twisted minds desperate to cling to their last, broken, dented weapon: racism.

Amato has to pick up the pieces of his shattered world view and cobble together with hot glue the last two that seem serviceable:

Slave + racism

Note I said "slave," not "slavery." Rush is clearly describing people who simply refuse -- for whatever sad reason -- to fend for themselves, and throw themselves at the feat of society, and demand to be taken care of.

Rush said nothing at all about race. Amato injected that, because he had to. To him, slavery means the American South 150 years ago, and the civil rights movement of the 60s where all the Amatos got their societally sanctioned hate-paint bucket.

Well, it's over. Gone. Racial friction from all quarters will always be with us, but institutionalized racism is gone. Hardworking black people are upwardly mobile. The majority of blacks in the U.S. are Lower Middle Class, Middle Class, Upper Middle Class, or Rich -- not ghetto poor welfare slaves. Just like the rest of us. True, they still have a larger under class, but why is that? Certainly not racism. That just won't fly. The hate paint won't stick any more, and most Americans are tired of being called racists, and we aren't buying it any more.

posted by Bill Smith at October 10, 2010 08:16 AM

---

It has been argued that slavery is a frame of mind. I believe that to be true. Someone can put you in bondage and try and make you work, but at some point you rebell and turn on the individual. However, some will not rebell. If you study the history of slavery, you will find that all races were subjected to it. In fact the word itself originates from slav as the East Europeans were the ones most troubled by Muslim raiders. All races were used a slaves in the US. It was only one group of people that allowed themselves to continue in bondage. Indians just died, whites killed the master. In the two hundred years of African bondage, there were only a handful of attempts at freedom.

You can see modern slavery by looking at the tapes of Katrina. People who had no idea as to how to take care of themselves.

posted by David at October 10, 2010 12:29 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:26 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Not too shocking. That is, if you accept that the Palestinians start indoctrinating their children young, to believe that the ultimate expression of their lives is to lose them destroying Jews.

Golda Meir is supposed to have said that there will be peace between Israel and the Arabs only when the Arabs love their children more than they hate Jews. Can anyone doubt this is true?

posted by Steve Skubinna at October 9, 2010 12:24 PM

---

I hope everyone remembers another filmed incident featuring some of the same actors. One of them was supposedly protecting his child from Jewish soldiers during a firefight. He had,which was to me, a strange way of protecting his child by holding him in front of him in the direction the bulletts were coming from. This was all exposed as a hoax too, but I don't remember if the child was killed or not. If they don't care, then I surely do not.

posted by tjbbpgobIII at October 9, 2010 07:56 PM

---

At about 0:37... I wonder why the kid is struggling to stay out of the van?

posted by scp at October 9, 2010 08:11 PM

---

Grant the Israelis the land in the American southwest that is now arid desert and let them turn it into a fertile region and then move every single Israeli from the mid east to the new "Israel" in the south western US. Turn over what is now known as Israel to the Palestinians and I will wager every thing I own against a dollar that within 6 months the Palestianians will have turned the country into an ungovernable garbage dump and they will somehow blame it all on the jews in the bargin.
"Palestinians" are soon to be an extinct people, because they continue to fail to adapt to a changing enviornment and expend their young in an unwinnable war against the jewish people.

posted by firefirefire at October 10, 2010 05:09 AM

---

My take: the car was driven by another Hamas/PLO/Fatah/whatever operative, the entire thing rehearsed until it was perfectly orchestrated.
The kid was clearly trained to fall in such a way as to not get injured.
The car hit it in such a way as to minimise the chance of injury (excessively low speed for travelling in a dangerous part of town for example).

No, this was as spontaneous as the "peace flotilla" "defending itself against the Zionist oppressors".

posted by J.T. Wenting at October 10, 2010 07:00 AM

---

Hamas is indeed a vile terrorist organization, but it has the allegiance of a minority of Palestinians. you can't tar all Palestinians with the same brush. Remember that the state of Israel was founded by violent terrorists as well, just look up the Stern Gang or the bombing of the King David Hotel. Maybe you should also consider how you might behave if an armed gang of Native Americans showed up on your doorstep, abused your family then took over your house because, after all they were here many years ago and God said the land belongs to them. I'm sure none of you would defend yourselves or be bitter about losing everything you own. Please explain why the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves or fight to regain their land?

posted by Will Butler at October 10, 2010 03:36 PM

---

Uhhh, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say maybe it's because it wasn't their land to begin with? And not to mention that there weren't any "palestinians" until your hero Arofag began using that term after he was thrown out of Jordan for trying to overthrow the king there.

posted by emdfl at October 11, 2010 12:14 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:26 PM

---

� Hide Comments

Do you ever find yourself sitting in front of the television, clenching your fists and yelling at the screen in amazement as the unarmed hero, pursued by a multitude of bloodthirsty, armed baddies deftly renders a bad guy unconscious, and immediately trots off without picking up his weapons and ammunition?! By the same token, do you find yourself yelling at the TV when a politician makes an absolutely outrageous assertion and the talking head is completely unable to see the obvious, common sense, devastating reply or the simple question that will lay waste their entire ideology?

Witness the recent progressive vacation exodus from Capitol Hill by those brave soles of the overwhelming majority, those demigods (demagogues?) of public virtue who inexplicably lack the ability or fortitude to pass a budget or to vote on the renewal of the aforementioned tax cuts prior to the upcoming Great Commode Flushing of 2010, or as it is less colorfully known, The Off Year Elections. If only their fortitude did not extend to definitions.

Who knew, for example, that the cost of a middling home in much of America was actually the dividing line between the middle class and the rich? While I�d love to experience the Olympian luxury and leisure of making $250,000 per year, I wouldn�t be foolish enough to imagine that it made me rich. Who could have imagined that our earnings were actually the rightful property of the elite Progressive class who know so much better than do we what to do with our money? Who could have known the mere existence of the rich was an impending apocalypse?

One of the great joys and wonders of Capitalism is that it is not a zero sum game. A dollar made by my neighbor is not a dollar unavailable to me. Nothing restrains me from starting a small business, building that better mousetrap, and attaining the unimaginable wealth of $250,000 but my own abilities, knowledge and determination (OK, OK, The Obama Socialist Laser Economic Death Ray would probably burn a hole right through me, my employees and my payroll, but play along...).

There was a time in America when coveting the possessions of others or shamelessly expressing jealousy of them was considered unseemly, a sign of bad upbringing and shabby character, yet such blatant covetousness has been adopted wholesale by President Obama and his followers. One wonders what mothers would say about those who extend such bad manners to include an entire, arbitrarily selected class of people.

If my neighbor is rich, it speaks as well of my character that I sincerely congratulate him on his industry and good fortune as when I clothe and feed the poor and hungry. His success should serve as nothing but inspiration to me and others to pursue what he has attained if we are so inclined, and in America, at least as it was PO (Pre-Obama), nothing would stand in our way. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson on religion, his wealth neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, and this particular rising tide does lift all boats, small and great.

The idea, often spouted with smug self assurance by socialists, that if Republicans (and not a few democrats who feel the torches of the enraged, pitchfork wielding villagers on their fleeing coattails) want to extend the Bush Tax Cuts, they must come up with a gazillion dollars to pay for the resulting loss to the Treasury is one of the more brazen economic lies ever created, yet it�s a useful lie. It�s useful in that it clearly reveals the heart and soul of the socialist economic philosophy: Your money is not yours, not only the money in your pocket, but any money you might potentially earn in the future. Neither is your property or liberty. You possess only that which the all knowing, all caring, all wise state deems you fit to possess. Did I mention that the state may also change the rules, all of them, at any time and without notice? Ask GM stockholders about that.

The Bush Tax Cuts are phantoms. They are potential, future taxes, inventions, wishes, ghosts, fairy dust, taxes that need never be levied by the Congress, a Congress that has arranged this particularly bit of legislative sleight of hand so that the taxes will be levied automatically if they do...nothing. In their present form, the BTC's exercise at least minimal restraint on a rapacious, never sated government, allowing citizens to keep more of their own earnings. They are not monies in the mythical Al Gore lockbox that will be stolen from hungry widows, orphans and the infirm elderly if heartless Republicans allow the evil rich to keep their ill gotten gains, gains that do not yet, and may never, exist.

There is no way to know precisely how much money any given new tax will bring in, but if the BTC�s are not extended, hopefully permanently, their expiration in January of 2011 will constitute the single largest tax increase in the history of the Republic. It is this fact, no doubt, that is overflowing the drool buckets of the Congressional Socialists. And will they use it to reduce the deficit? Balance the budget that they could not be bothered to write? Of course not. Even now many of them daydream about a lame-duck manifested second �Stimulus� such as the first that brought us �The Summer of Recovery,� thousands of legally mandated signs lauding shovel ready construction projects that weren�t, billions in government checks sent to the dead (presumably in Chicago and other Democrat strongholds, no doubt as payment for voting services rendered, past and future), and countless other economically brain dead pursuits.

It does seem more than likely, however, that the largest tax increase in history, coupled with an economy poised on the very brink of a double dip recession and 10%+ unemployment, will not only fail to bring in the anticipated drool-covered revenues, but will actually cause the Treasury to lose money. Those fabled laboratories of democracy, the states, have some significant recent experience with exactly that ugly state of affairs. Imagine that. Spend money you don�t have by mortgaging the country to China, vastly increase taxes on everyone, encourage the truly wealthy to shelter their assets and move themselves and their businesses out of the country, destroy all incentive for small business with punitive taxes (let�s not get into Obamacare, shall we?) and tax revenues decrease. As Yogi Berra said, �It�s deja vu all over again.�

Is it too late? Too late to take sincere pleasure in the good fortune and accomplishments of others? Too late to stop spending money we don�t have? Too late to stop drooling with the obscene hunger of spending other people�s money, money spent against their will, money they have yet to earn? Too late to write an honest budget? Too late to actually read bills before votes are cast? Or will we demand that those obvious, common sense replies be made, the questions asked, even if we have to do it ourselves? The answer may determine if, on November 2, that great maelstrom will flush away not only a brace of socialists, but our identity and future as the last, best hope of mankind as well.

� Hide "The Great Commode Flushing of 2010"

---

Good points, but this commode will need multiple flushings. ITs a long road from here to a country that doesn't engage in class warfare, a long road back to America as a leader of economic freedom.

2010 may turn out to be a good start, but there are a lot more turds in the government at all levels.

Remember to jiggle the handle.

posted by Sinner at October 12, 2010 10:04 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Sometimes I think that the only thing that keeps socialism from just snapping over into full communism is that most socialist countries still have elections to at least partially restrain their Marxist leaders. God knows what would be happening now if the 2010 housecleaning wasn't coming up.

And don't overlook the real possiblity that Obama is nowhere close to as smart as people keep insisting he is.

posted by TB at October 9, 2010 12:14 AM

---

_______________________________________

No monetary or fiscal policy can pull us out of the depression.

I am inviting you today to

Vote for Your Economy, Now.
_______________________________________

When was the last time you were given that opportunity?

We don't intend to replace the prevalent system but to offer you an additional option.

We will add a significant amount of jobs, income and investment.

This is the only election in which the law of the majority is not binding on the minority.

If you don't participate you are still be making a choice:
the choice of relying exclusively on the prevalent system.
_______________________________________

Vote Now for the Credit Free, Free Market Economy
Add Jobs, Revenues & Investments.
Prosperous, Fair, Stable & Peaceful.
http://post-crash.com
_______________________________________

On September 10th at 10:10:10 AM EST
I will post a video on that site describing the voting process.
_______________________________________

At the present moment people are unusually expectant of a more fundamental diagnosis; more particularly ready to receive it; eager to try it out, if it should be even plausible. But apart from this contemporary mood, the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else.

Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.

I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.

_______________________________________

Vote Now for the Credit Free, Free Market Economy
Add Jobs, Revenues & Investments.
Prosperous, Fair, Stable & Peaceful.
http://post-crash.com
_______________________________________

Note: I am grateful to the owners of this blog to let me publish my Ideas on their Internet Property. I am ready to publish free articles on any media whatever their political, economical, philosophical ideology.

posted by Shalom Patrick Hamou at October 9, 2010 01:46 PM

---

It was always about electing a spokesmodel for those that really wished to do their thing behind the scenes, NOT a leader.

posted by Brigid at October 9, 2010 02:34 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:26 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

I just hope he doesn't use his students as "hostages."

posted by NevadaDailySteve at October 8, 2010 10:36 AM

---

just wow.

from the age of ten when my father started instructing me the one cardinal rule that was never to be broken even with an unloaded gun was never to point a firearm at a person ever. loaded or unloaded. unless you were in mortal danger from that person.

all other rules revolve around that one.

posted by rumcrook at October 8, 2010 11:23 AM

---

My grandfather shot a cigarette out of another man's mouth on a dare. It's not really his fault though. They were all pretty drunk.

(Completely true. And he hit the smoke, but didn't put it out, which was the bet, so he lost.)

posted by Kevin at October 8, 2010 01:13 PM

---

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me that's fake.

posted by Tony B at October 8, 2010 01:58 PM

---

This guy is a maroon! Bet he doesn't have any friends.

posted by gDavid at October 8, 2010 04:35 PM

---

His previous partners could not be reached for comment :)

These scenarios have russian-roulette vibe, see "The Deer Hunter".

posted by mockmook at October 8, 2010 08:45 PM

---

Hey, someone has to make evolution a working proposition.....

posted by SDN at October 8, 2010 10:07 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Thank's Confederate Yankee. This was a great idea from one of tour posters, thanks again for creating the archhive. It will help the CRS(Can't Remember Sh*t) syndrome.

posted by Jvh at October 8, 2010 01:42 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Remember, remember, the 2 of of November,
the taxes, treason and rot
I know of no reason
why the taxes and rot
should ever be forgot.

Vote ANYONE ELSE on 2 November!

Orion

posted by Orion at October 7, 2010 09:59 PM

---

Am I alone in finding that video incredibly annoying? I agree with the message, but it jumps from picture to picture so fast, and even when it doesn't, it uses that horrid shakycam thing.

Absolutely unwatchable. Still gonna vote republican though :).

posted by Kevin at October 8, 2010 01:09 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Whoa. A threat is a promise. At least he's being up front about it.

posted by brando at October 6, 2010 06:44 PM

---

Another threat of violence from the left. Consistent.

posted by Everitt Mickey at October 6, 2010 07:55 PM

---

Hey, watch that hateful eliminationist rhetoric, citizen!

posted by Steve Skubinna at October 7, 2010 04:31 AM

---

What budget? Not even a proposal for one in this session of Congress. Just continuing, deficit producing resolutions.

Kind of an empty suit moment, Joe.

posted by Robert17 at October 7, 2010 08:05 AM

---

I keep hearing them (progressive, leftist, Marxists) talk a fight. No talk here in Texas. Bring it.

posted by Odins Acolyte at October 7, 2010 01:06 PM

---

An ass will always be an ass and will always smell like one.

Hey, Confederate Yankee, help this old man out. I don't understand your tag line; "Because liberalism is a persistant vegetative state.". I wish they would have been vegitating for the last 50 years. You are obviously using the term in a different way.

posted by Jim at October 7, 2010 05:29 PM

---

Well now, here's someone who doesn't understand the concept of metaphor.

posted by Cesc at October 7, 2010 11:14 PM

---

Hah!

posted by Kevin at October 8, 2010 01:06 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

For those who would prefer to believe that the Las Vegas Police murdered Erik Scott in cold blood on July 10, 2010, that they have engaged in a coverup, that the Las Vegas Prosecutors were a part of the coverup, that the Coroner�s Inquest jury wrongfully found the three officers involved justified in shooting Scott, and that all police officers are potentially out of control killers, this series has likely been something of a disappointment. For those who have been seeking to understand what happened and potentially, why it happened, I hope this series has been useful. But as you, gentle readers, will see in this final update, the police are hardly blameless, and there is much to be done, yet there is hope that it can and will be done.

It seems clear that no local criminal charges will be brought against the officers or anyone else involved in Las Vegas. The finding of the Inquest jury does not absolutely preclude this, but considering the evidence presented by the Prosecutor�s Office and its apparent harmony with the police version of events, it seems exceedingly unlikely. This is not, however, the end of legal proceedings. William Scott, Erik�s father, has announced plans for a civil suit against the officers, Costco, the Las Vegas Police and possibly others involved. This is essential in that the discovery process will potentially allow all of the facts to come to light. The degree to which the police or other related parties resist discovery will serve to more accurately indicate to which degree, if any, they have anything to hide. No amount of money can compensate those who loved Erik for his loss, but sufficient compensatory and punitive damages can compel otherwise resistant bureaucrats and politicians to make changes they would not otherwise make. For the foreseeable future, there will be substantial institutional resistance to any change or alteration of procedure within the Metro Police as they will fear that such changes will be seen as an admission of guilt and culpability. However, as this is being written, the Clark County Commissioners seem willing to consider changes in Coroner�s Inquest rules to ensure that the truth is more likely to be revealed. More far reaching changes are in the hands of the citizens of Las Vegas.

Another legal possibility is the filing of federal charges for the violation of Scott�s civil rights. While this is possible, and may be undertaken by United States Attorney Daniel G. Bodgen for the district in which Las Vegas is located, politics is frequently a concern in such decisions. While leftists, and those currently in charge of the DOJ certainly fit that description, absolutely mistrust and often despise the police, considering them to be stupid, racist brutalizers, another more powerful consideration may be at work. Recent testimony from former Department of Justice Attorney J. Christopher Adams and current Attorney Christopher Coates has established that the Obama-Holder DOJ has an aggressive institutional bias against enforcing the law where whites are the victims. While their testimony focused on the DOJ division responsible for the enforcement of voting rights, there is little reason to believe that the DOJ as a whole does not share this institutional bias. Since Scott was a red-haired white man shot by two officers who were also white (and one Hispanic), this may mitigate against any federal involvement for the foreseeable future. However, a federal suit may have the best chance at getting to the truth as federal law establishes mere lying to the FBI as a crime in and of itself. In any case, either of these processes will take years, and resulting appeals, additional years.

The citizens of Las Vegas had better hope that President Obama doesn�t make any further off-the-teleprompter attempts to drive away business. They�re going to need a substantial tax base to pay the damages in future legal actions. It�s easy to make things go your way in a one sided hearing where all the rules are in your favor. However, in a civil suit the standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence, or simply stated, 51%. By that standard, Costco, the Officers and the City of Las Vegas are in real trouble.

The Scott case will likely be studied and analyzed by police tacticians and will be used to train officers across the country for years to come. In many ways, it is a classic case of small errors compounding, one on the other, leading to a tragedy that would have been averted if just one link in the chain had been broken, if just one Officer had questioned the status quo or employed common sense. Yet the case is noteworthy because of its many unusual factors. Some examples are:

Officers across the country involved in shootings have an average hit rate of only about 25% of rounds fired, which means that some 75% of the officer�s rounds flew off in directions other than those intended by the officers. Consider that most officer involved shootings take place at shockingly short ranges. The Scott shooting also took place at close range, but the hit rate was 100% and every bullet remained in Scott�s body. There were no misses or complete penetrations acknowledged by the Police or Medical Examiner. This is not impossible, but is certainly unusual, so unusual that the police cooked up an outlandish tale to try to explain that the public was never in danger. Were more than seven rounds fired, and if so, where did they end up? There is no way to know at the moment.

Particularly bizarre is the Police and Costco story that the store�s sole means of recording video was broken for three days before, and the day that, Scott was shot. While such a coincidence is possible, it seems unlikely that a major chain retail store would allow its best defense against theft, robbery, fraud and meritless lawsuits to be broken for a day, let alone four. One wonders what the owner of the store would have said if this state of affairs was true and made known to him at the time. It will be interesting indeed to hear from Costco personnel why such an obviously incompetent state of affairs was allowed to occur, if indeed it did.

Here is a sampling of what a civil jury will likely hear from the Scott�s attorneys at the civil trial:

(1) Erik Scott did not have to die. He should have survived July 10, 2010. He should be alive today.

(2) Costco gave Scott, and every other customer, no notice that lawfully carried concealed weapons were not allowed. Anyone so armed entering any Costco store would have no reason to believe they were not welcome. Scott served his country, was willing to risk his life for it, and had every reason to believe that he was justified in exercising and defending a fundamental American right that day.

(3) Costco Security employee Shai Lierley was doing his best, but he was inexperienced, undertrained--perhaps even untrained--and overreacted. During his contact with the Dispatcher, his descriptions of Scott changed in a span of minutes from a man who was under the influence of drugs and wildly throwing merchandise about the store, to a man who might have been merely �hyperactive,� �dodgity,� �fidgity,� and finally, to a man who was merely walking normally in the store with his girlfriend calmly leaving with every other shopper when the order to evacuate was given. Lierley may have wanted to back down, to correct his early excitement and overreaction, but he didn�t know how, and the Dispatcher and police did not provide that option. Not only that, their subsequent actions have locked Lierley into a story he was clearly trying to disown. We will see that he has that opportunity.

(4) Other store employees, including the manager, also overreacted, yet, they had so little fear of Scott that they repeatedly approached and hectored him about his legally carried handgun. Despite all of this, they never actually asked him to leave the store, nor did anyone tell the Dispatcher or the Police that he had been asked to leave the store.

(5) The Dispatcher did her best, but asked strange, irrelevant questions, did not continually update Scott�s location with precise, understandable location information, and did not continually update Scott�s behavior. In fact, the Dispatcher only repeated old information and made transmissions to officers based not on what she was told by Lierley, but based on her own assumptions. These transmissions greatly increased the danger to Scott and the public by misinforming the responding officers and maintaining, even increasing, their belief in a high level of danger. As Lierley consistently ratcheted down Scott�s behavior, and therefore, the potential threat he represented to the public and the officers, the Dispatcher did not question Lierley and clarify the situation, but engaged in gossip with him.

(6) The responding officers merely took what was said by the Dispatcher at face value despite the sparse information she was providing. They did not ask basic, absolutely necessary questions about Scott, how he was behaving, where he was, whether he was threatening customers or Costco employees, his state of mind or any other basic, minimal information necessary to properly evaluate and handle the call. They were never, not for a minute, in control of events; events controlled them.

(7) An officer was given permission by the watch commander to carefully evacuate the store, yet a Costco employee made a general evacuation announcement, causing everyone, including Scott and his girlfriend Samantha Sterner, to leave the store at once. The Police failed in their duty to protect the public by separating and isolating Scott from the other customers, and when Scott himself was leaving the store, clearly intending to separate himself from the rest of the crowd, rather than allowing him to do just that and approaching him in a calm, non-threatening manner when it was safe, three Officers surrounded him, shouted confusing, contradictory commands, drew their guns, and within scarce seconds, began to shoot him seven times with themselves and the public as bullet stops.

(8) Two of the officers that shot Scott were posted at the front door of the Costco and watched Scott walk past them as he left. Despite the fact that he was probably the only customer in the store that day that matched the description they had been given, that of a red headed male, he appeared absolutely unremarkable to them, a far cry from the drug crazed maniac that was, only minutes earlier, laying waste to the store.

(9) Caught totally by surprise when a store employee pointed Scott out to them, the officers panicked, grossly overreacted to a non-existent threat, and within mere seconds of the start of their excited, confusing, contradictory commands coming from before and behind him, shot him, once in the chest, once in the thigh, once under the arm and four times in the back as he was falling, dead or dying, face down to the pavement. They paid no attention to the safety of the public that was all around them. They paid no attention to their own safety. They gave Erik Scott no time to respond to their confusing, contradictory commands and shot him without justification.

(10) Trying to cover their mistake, the Police have made the preposterous statement that the public were never in danger because the officers simultaneously choose a single pillar as a bullet backstop. It is not reasonable to believe this.

(11) After shooting Scott, the Officers were so in shock, so out of control, that they handcuffed him, yet did not check his medical condition and did not properly search him. It took a firefighter/medic to find his additional handgun and spare magazines in his pants pockets.

(11) The Police and Costco would have us believe that their means of video recording for their entire store had been broken since Wednesday, July 7th, their only means of protecting themselves from false charges, lawsuits, thefts and robbery, yet they did nothing about it for four days. It is not reasonable to believe this.

(12) Erik Scott did have drugs in his system, but drugs prescribed by physicians treating him for intractable pain caused by spinal damage incurred as a result not only of his distinguished military service, but of civilian accidents. Despite this debilitating pain, Erik Scott was a productive, upstanding member of society who worked at a demanding job more than 40 hours each week, and an athlete who strove to deal with the pain that was always with him. And do not forget that he was fully vetted by the State of Nevada which granted him a concealed carry license.

(13) Above all, the Officers and those involved in Scott�s death must be judged on what they knew at the time, not on vague supposition and attacks on the character and life of a dead man after the fact.

All of this, and more, the attorneys for Scott�s family will say, and knowing what I now know, and what I can reasonably infer from experience, I can only say that I would have to agree with them, and that a jury will agree with them too.

Did Officer Mosher and the other Officers lie? For the time being, there is insufficient information to make such a claim. They may well have testified to what they believed to be true, but that does not absolve them. The time frame of two seconds from the first shouted command to the firing of the first bullet was obtained without sophisticated equipment that will surely greatly refine all related time sequences, but let�s assume, for the sake of this scenario, that two seconds is correct. From the first shout of the officer directly in front of him, Scott would have been shocked--witnesses testified to this--by the sight of an officer, pointing his handgun at him at close range. He would also have been aware of two officers behind him shouting conflicting commands from short range. If Scott was a man possessed of average reflexes, it�s reasonable to assume that it would have taken him a minimum of half a second to actually be able to respond and to start to speak or move his arm, and easily as long as 8/10 of a second. With 1.2 to 1.5 seconds remaining before the first round was fired into his chest, Scott may not have had sufficient time to draw his weapon and point it at Officer Mosher as he testified.

This is so because inside the waistband holsters like that worn by Scott have the rough side of the leather outward to help the weapon stay in place, and to provide friction that tends to prevent the holster from being pulled up and out with the handgun when the weapon is drawn. In other words, it takes far more time to remove the weapon and the holster than only the weapon, and the Police have locked themselves into the story that this is what happened. In addition, in order to draw the weapon and holster, Scott had to first lift his shirt and hold it out of the way while drawing. This adds additional time. Even with a two second time frame, it may not have been physically possible for Scott to react to the confrontation, lift his shirt, remove the handgun and holster, swing it around to the front of his body, and point the handgun, still in the holster, directly at Officer Mosher before Mosher fired. If the actual time frame is less than 2 full seconds, it becomes even more unlikely that the Police scenario is possible. This is, of course, an interesting matter that will require proper analysis and experimentation.

Another issue is that of the perception of imminent danger by the Officers. Some would suggest that in this situation, any officer--if the Officer�s accounting of events is accurate--would have been justified in shooting Scott. However, thousands of citizens are alive today because officers across the nation took the extra fractions of a second necessary to be certain that the object in the hands of a suspect was actually a real gun rather than a billfold or some other object.

From my own experiences as an officer, I can recount many such situations. Some caused me to grasp, but not draw, my handgun. Some caused me to draw and go to ready. In a few, my finger was moving toward the trigger and my handgun rising on target. In a few, my finger was on the trigger and ready to fire, but in none of those encounters was it necessary to fire. My experience is not at all unusual.

On one occasion, I approached a drunk, a man I knew from previous encounters. As I greeted him and he noticed me, without a word, he reached into a back pocket, pulled out a large folding knife and thrust it toward me. I didn�t move or move my hand toward my handgun because I approached him properly, observing him for a few minutes before I did. I stood out of grabbing range, and knew that I could easily evade him. I also watched his body closely. His stance was not aggressive or practical for a knife attack. The speed and attitude of his hand and arm motions did not indicate an attack. That and the fact that the knife remained closed and he presented it palm up, with an open hand, convinced me that he was not a threat. I did berate him, told him never to do that to a police officer again lest he get himself shot, and asked why he did it. He replied that he was afraid I�d find it myself and get him in trouble. Could a less experienced officer have perceived deadly danger, seen a man pulling a knife from behind his back, shot him at the first moment he recognized, or thought he recognized, a knife and been justified? Perhaps. The point is that these situations are all different and must be judged by reasonable people upon careful consideration of all of the evidence. That full judgement has yet to be rendered in this case.

What was Scott�s culpability in this case? This too, is for a jury to judge and that judgement has yet to be rendered. The evidence presented in the Inquest was almost entirely one sided and focused on damaging Scott�s character and providing justification for the actions of the Officers. However, this ignores a significant reality: All that really matters is what the Officers could have known and reasonably inferred at the moment they met Scott and in the tiny span of seconds before they opened fire. They could not have known whether Scott was a devil or a saint. Their actions had to be based on what they had been told, which was almost certainly faulty, and on their observations which their own tactics limited to a few seconds. That said, all the available evidence indicates that when Scott walked out the front doors of Costco with Sterner, he was completely unremarkable, indistinguishable from the hundreds of others leaving at the same time. Some have suggested that if Scott did this, or didn�t do that, everything would have been different, but that�s beside the point and can never be determined or supported by evidence. The facts and circumstances surrounding the shooting can.

So what could have been done differently? I�ve gone into this in some detail in updates one through four, so I�ll not go over old ground, but merely add a few refinements, understanding clearly that hindsight is always 20-20.

All too often, Police officers have mere seconds to make decisions and act. This is not one of those cases. The Police had plentiful manpower and many minutes to watch, think and act, a truly luxurious spread of time in Police work, yet they did not use it effectively. They were never in control. They did not accomplish even the basics, let alone employ sophisticated tactics.

How could they have handled it? Obviously, they needed to identify and locate Scott as soon as possible while keeping uniformed officers out of his sight. Lierley was following Scott about the store with a cellphone, yet the Dispatcher not only apparently did not specifically tell this to the responding Officers, she didn�t provide timely, accurate updates regarding his location, direction of motion and state of mind/behavior, nor did the only radio transcript currently available indicate that the Officers asked for such updates. Had they done this, they would have quickly discovered that Scott was not a drug-crazed, raging madman ready to begin shooting at any second, but a man calmly shopping, a man who was so indistinguishable in appearance and behavior from the other shoppers that he walked within feet of two officers intently looking for someone matching his description without their notice.

Had the Police done this, they could have been reasonably sure that Scott posed no immediate danger and done what common sense dictated: Separate Scott from as many of the other shoppers as possible. They could have taken notice that he was calmly walking out of the store with the rest of the shoppers and allowed him to walk toward his car, in effect, separating himself from the other shoppers, while stealthily positioning Officers to keep Scott covered, just in case. And when Scott was in a position favorable to the Police, when back up officers had a clear field of fire, not a circular firing squad, and good backstops because they took the time to be sure of them, when other officers cleared away bystanders, because many other Officers were available at the scene, a single officer could have approached Scott with a smile on his face, and asked: �Pardon me Sir; could I have a word with you please?� And Erik Scott would probably be alive today.

I�ll watch the case as it unfolds and report new developments when warranted. Thanks to Confederate Yankee readers, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, and many other fine blogs for their links and interest in CY and this story.

� Hide "The Erik Scott Case: Update 5 (The Future)"

---

Training and employment screening is what is missing from this tradgedy. It is obvious that these three cops had neither. The fact that he was quietly leaving the store should have been the key to all of this. Just the thought that these cowboys would confront him in public is staggering. That is the basic flaw in this debacle and it only got worse. If these cops are not tried for at least manslaughter then the LVPD should fire them for the departments on sake.

posted by inspectorudy at October 6, 2010 12:17 AM

---

Someone said in a response to one of the prior updates that officers are trained to empty their magazines at a person when engaging.
As there were 3 officers engaging, even if they only had 6 rounds each (unlikely, more likely they'd have at least 8-10 rounds each) that's 18 rounds fired, of which 7 hit.
A 40% hit rate at extremely close range. Well over the 25% you state as average, but it's assuming a very low number of rounds fired per officer. Go up to a 10 round magazine and it's down to 23%, or just about in the ballpark.

So indeed something's not right.
Either the officers were inexperienced enough to make a mistake in shooting him while being also expert marksmen, or where are the other 23 bullets fired by experienced officers who're just average marksmen (and which would indicate the LVPD and DOJ are protecting their own as usual)?

As to security cameras. Their mere presence acts as a deterrent to the casual shoplifter, which is all that can be hoped for.
As long as it's not public knowledge the camera is defective, that deterrence factor is not reduced, so it's little surprise they didn't hurry to get it repaired.

posted by JTW at October 6, 2010 02:33 AM

---

I've never heard of any doctrine that requires one to empty the magazine. Every use of force continuum I have ever seen stresses use of minimum force required, and immediate de-escalation when the situation is resolved. "Two to the chest, one to the head" is a fine doctrine for combat, but in a LE or security scenario is nothing short of murder.

In short, you fire until the circumstance that required deadly force is resolved, and nothing more. If one round does it, then you fire only one round.

posted by Steve Skubinna at October 6, 2010 05:37 AM

---

Mike:

Knowing ONLY what the dispatcher told you, you would have walked up to Erik and said [�Pardon me Sir; could I have a word with you please?�]?? I'm surprised you're still alive, unless you had one of them there 'empty holster jobs' your entire career.

Oh! BTW, that wasn't Erik Scott you just walked up on, it was Maurice Clemmons.

posted by Buck T at October 6, 2010 08:33 AM

---

An excellent analysis and one that challenges law enforcement protocol...which is reckless and self-serving.

I'll repeat a condensed version of my comment in the previous post: The problem is chain of command and the nature of confrontations between LE and the citizen. Both are faulty and both have been faulty for a very long time.

Nothing should be allowed to even risk situations where the end result is the death of an innocent man by way of public servant. All the at-scene analysis of the product of circumstances is interesting -- and we've seen reams of that -- but the real issue is how we came to have these hired, armed thugs walking among us, operating on robotic "training" and suffering not a single consequence in some lop-sided ethic that has them privileged and us victimized.

posted by Ten at October 6, 2010 09:16 AM

---

JTW
I somewhat disagree with your security camera view, It is true for small stores but big chain stores more often then not have to use them as evidence in slip and fall lawsuits so it is in there best Interest to keep them in good working order

posted by Rich at October 6, 2010 09:51 AM

---

@Steve: I'm only passing on what I've heard from my father (retired NY sergeant) and that is that emptying the clip or not depends entirely on your instructor. It may have been changed upon procedural review in recent years.

The NYPD had several issues in the last decade with firing ridiculous amounts of lead at people and they stated it was their training.

@MikeM. Thanks, this has been a very informative series. It's certainly helped me have a cooler head about the situation.

posted by Bill at October 6, 2010 10:12 AM

---

How about putting all the posts on this subject in their own archive category for future reference? I have a feeling their will be much more to come.

posted by gcw at October 6, 2010 10:44 AM

---

I ran into a situation at the airport that was similar to this. A person double parked his car and went ot the curb to get his wife's luggage. An officer told him to move the car but he either did not hear or was in the process of completing his action. The officer drew his gun and was going to point and arrest. I was beside the officer and told him to put the piece away and back off. Luckily that wrrked and no one was hurt, if he had continued he liknely would have pulled the trigger. That is what we are dealing with.

posted by David at October 6, 2010 11:02 AM

---

I remember reading in the first couple of days of the inquest (newspaper diary) that 8 rounds were fired but the 8th round is never accounted for in any other testimony.

Also, Mosher testified he followed procedure in handcuffing Scott but then broke procedure by not searching him because he thought Scott would be taken directly to the morgue not the hospital. He stated he was distracted by the need to organize the other officers to manage the crowd, put up tape, etc.

They do not identify who uncuffed him at the paramedic's request or why no one realized that the search had been skipped after releasing the restraints.

Lamenting that the police should do better is ultimately futile. If you carry, you should be prepared to be confronted by the most incompetent officer who thinks you just shot his favorite dog. The most effective way of keeping police calm in a confrontation is to condition yourself to not touch your weapon, regardless. Just as you train to keep your finger off the trigger, to not check the trigger in stress situations, your response to a police challenge should be to require conscious effort to touch you weapon. Vice conscious effort to stop an automatic reaction to touch the weapon or seek to hand it to the officer.

In Scott's case the claim is that the officers ordered him to disarm but the words were "Drop your weapon" Not the same in my opinion but startled and on pain killers his judgement might have been off. In any case, if more than one officer is present, any order that requires you to touch your weapon will likely get you shot as one or more officers may not register the order and react to a weapon in your hand.

It would be nice if we could expect well-trained, experienced officers but there are a lot more rookies hopped up on caffeine and adrenalin, who didn't pay attention in training.

posted by JKB at October 6, 2010 11:13 AM

---

Your notation at number (8) would certainly explain how Scott got shot in the back. He walked right past two cops who didn't even realize that he was the (armed)perp they were looking for.

I'm going to bet that his family will and their lawyers will end up owning a very large piece of COSCO and the city of Las Vagas.

posted by emdfl at October 6, 2010 11:34 AM

---

the way you proposed they handle it was how I was disarmed by the police about 15 years ago. and I had intuition the moment they walked in it was for me and kept my hands clear and well away from my holster.

they then asked if they could remove my glock from the holster, and I kept my hands up on the washing machine (I was In a loundrymat)

they asked me a few questions, looked at my ID determined the women who ran the place was a hysterical idiot and explained she was safer with me in there than without. (late at night, and a very crappy hood)

asked me not to re-load until they had left the building then gave me back my glock and the magazine and left.

posted by rumcrook at October 6, 2010 12:03 PM

---

Some have suggested that if Scott did this, or didn�t do that, everything would have been different, but that�s beside the point and can never be determined or supported by evidence.

I disagree. Perhaps because of your background, you focus on what the police could have done differently. From my non-cop perspective, my focus is on what someone encountering the police could and should do to avoid getting shot.

If I were carrying a weapon, I have to assume that (1) I may very well become of interest to the police, (2) the police may be relying on incomplete and/or inaccurate information, and (3) the police officers involved may not be paragons of proper training, restraint and good judgment.

Therefore, I have to assume they are viewing me as a threat... and one in which they are ready - perhaps even eager - to resolve by shooting me until I am dead.

Because of this, I would make darn sure I did NOTHING that could possibly be construed in a way that confirmed their fears and, in their mind, gave them the right to open fire.

This is no different than the advice supposedly given to young blacks who encounter the police, or, perhaps, to Ira**s finding themselves staring down the barrel of a US soldier's M4.

It's pretty simple and straightforward: just don't give them a reason... and the test isn't what a reasonable person would consider a threat but rather someone who, as I said earlier, may be on the edge of snapping.

the ** are because your comment filter found the original word (synonym for people living in Iraq) to be questionable content...?

posted by steve at October 6, 2010 02:44 PM

---

Gotta agree with the other Steve in the last comment... If Scott had left the premises immediately upon being challenged by store personnel he would most likely be alive today.

Other than that, I have to say as a former peace officer that I am VERY nervous each and every time I have an encounter with law enforcement. Lot's of training is needed for the folks that are paid to protect us (even though they have no legal requirement to protect us).

Costco and Las Vegas need to be hit hard in civil court, and in Federal court regardless of the political considerations, over this incident.

posted by Steve in TN at October 6, 2010 03:59 PM

---

I'm not sure what Costco's liability is. What tort did Costco commit? Nor am I sure that Costco's actions could be deemed the proximate cause of Scott's death.

posted by steve at October 6, 2010 04:07 PM

---

Knowing ONLY what the dispatcher told you, you would have walked up to Erik and said [�Pardon me Sir; could I have a word with you please?�]?? I'm surprised you're still alive, unless you had one of them there 'empty holster jobs' your entire career.

I don't think it jumps directly to that. Step one is to put a police eyeball on the suspect before starting a slow-motion stampede to the door. Doing that would have told them instantly that this was not an ED situation, it wasn't an active shooter situation, and it really wasn't anything other than hysterical store and incompetent dispatcher.

Then, after assessing the real situation, there wouldn't be any issue with just walking up -- especially flanked by the same two officers who participated in what has every appearance of a panic shoot.

posted by Phelps at October 6, 2010 04:25 PM

---

Phelps,

I totally agree with you.The three Officers that ultimately shot Scott were there long enough to go eyes on and assess for themselves. But Mosher, called in a CODE RED based on another costco employee's comment,"that it's escalating inside". When infact, it was exacly the opposite. The detective on the stand said," code red only means keep this channel open incase something happens". I guess that means code red had nothing to do with the additional 15 officers, air unit, and ambulances dispatched to the scene. This causes me to want to yell BS from my rooftop. It also confounds me about how little LE thinks of citizens intelligence. Expecting us to except everything they say at face value, and being upset when we cry foul.

On a morbid note. I can't even afford to breath on the glass case that houses the Kimber 1911 Ultra carry in the gun store. Having one, I wouldn't be inclined to just toss a very expensive firearm willy nilly on the ground,when told to do so. So I probably would be dead too.

posted by Jvh at October 6, 2010 05:52 PM

---

Sorry everyone I originally posted as JohnH on earlier Scott updates. Just wanted to clarify. Thanks again to Mike M for a place to intelligently debate the shooting. It's amazing how many blind haters are writing on this subject out there, on both sides.

posted by Jvh at October 6, 2010 06:14 PM

---

Vegas has a large force, why did they not send in a detective to mingle with the shoppers and get the lay of the land. Just like with a bank alarm, observe and report.

posted by Pops at October 6, 2010 07:13 PM

---

Phelps:

You want customers to wait until the (incompetent/untrained/inexperienced/not qualified) police arrive to evaluated if it's a 'real deal' psychopathic gunman or just a prescription abuser having a bad hair day. Hummm....I have to think about that one.

My luck, pilgrim, I'd be in Costco buying my Mountain Dew when the 'real deal' guy would see the uniform policeman, have an anxiety attack, shoot everybody but me because he needed a hostage, the incapable authorities would sent in those federal negotiators of the Branch Davidians fame to parley my release and I'd be the first person to ever burn to death in the soda aisle.

posted by Buck T at October 6, 2010 08:27 PM

---

Why must we tip-toe around LEO's? Citizens have the right to be armed. It shouldn't be an abberation. You shouldn't have to unload and present your firearm for inspection on demand. Your license, yes. Not your firearm. I can think of at least three methods for doing so in a calm, rational, respectful manner that cover escalation, too.

A gun-fearing citizen panics, overreacts and next thing I know I have a squad of officers pointing their weapons at me while they're hopped up on adrenaline, caffeine and testosterone?

I'm going to be confused, angry and not likely to listen for the first few minutes until I can figure out what's going on and yelling at me isn't going to help anything at all.

As MikeM said. LEO's, Use your best weapon, your brain. Treat others with the respect you demand.

...and this is why I'll probably be gunned down some day. yay.

posted by Bill at October 7, 2010 10:14 AM

---

@JKB, Erik Scott's girlfriend stated, in her police interview, that she and Erik discussed the reason for the evacuation, that it might be him, and what they should do about it. She encouraged him to take his firearm out to his car and secure it there. He then said that if the police asked for it, he would surrender it to them.

As a CHL holder in Texas, I do not understand why Erik would decide to do that. Perhaps it was his military training. I think the military is more likely to allow a man to disarm without shooting him, because they know that all of them are trained in weapon handling and they assume that no one in their right mind would try to shoot their way out of a situation where they were at close range and outnumbered.

Erik may have thought the police were trained the same way. He was wrong, at least about Mosher.

posted by Paul Schmehl at October 7, 2010 11:27 PM

---

@steve "I'm not sure what Costco's liability is. What tort did Costco commit? Nor am I sure that Costco's actions could be deemed the proximate cause of Scott's death."

I'm going to assume this is a serious question, even though I find that incredible.

1) Costco called 911 rather than simply asking Erik to leave the store, grossly overreacting to his behavior.
2) Costco falsely reported his behavior, significantly escalating the situation (unless you believe that an agitated, excitable, possibly ED man with a gun suddenly became an unremarkable customer as he walked, unidentified, past waiting police right after a Costco employee reported to the waiting police that the situation was "escalating".)
3) Costco pointed him out to police waiting with weapons at the low ready rather than simply watching him walk out of the store and reporting that he had left the store.

posted by Paul Schmehl at October 7, 2010 11:34 PM

---

MikeM:

I have not yet seen you mention the genesis of this entire tragedy. Perhaps you missed this part of the story and testimony. It is important.

Costco employee Linda Bem was the person that took and processed Erik's membership when he first entered the Costco. She testifying that she noticed Erik's knuckle was bleeding, and made some assumptions of her own (presumably that domestic violence had just occurred, and that he was acting strange). She is the one who then alerted Costco management and security to go after Erik. Without the actions of this single Costco employee, the incident would likely have not occurred at all. Costco security was following Erik looking for an excuse to confront him right from the start of his fatal visit to Costco.

Please review the full testimony of Linda Blem for confirmation.

posted by Jeff at October 8, 2010 09:35 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Your article stated incorrectly states, �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.�
THIS
This is where any civil suite should begin.
Scott was described by COSTCO security not as if he were under the influence of narcotics, but as a �tweaker�, under the influence of crystal meth, crank; ripping open packages, throwing product around, being confrontational; AD� is he taking off clothing? Such was communicated to the responding LEOs by dispatch; efforts by security, casually walking ten feet behind him, to walk-back-the-cat to no avail.

The coroner, medical professionals, and multiple layman witnesses testified 180 degrees the opposite; he was on heavy downers, appearing drunk.

LEOs, numbers two and three, posted on either side of the exit door with shoulders to the wall. LEO number one was straight outside the door, on the canopy drip line, facing in. All three waiting should their deranged tweaker madman to come out.
Out a downer, not matching the tweaker profile, shuffles, he nearly walks away (as was suggested by store security before when they said weapons are not allowed here). THEN, our store security specialist of unknown reliability fingers him. RAPID adrenalin driven staccato (READ, �LEO tweaker�) commands follow� The shambling medically certified �heavy on downers� man has not enough time to say, ��. Huuuhhhhhhhh,,,,,, Whhhhhaaaaatt?� Less than six seconds. Good thing for LEO that he actually did have a gun�

�the inquest took the coroners / medical professionals determinations and ruled 180 degrees apart � Behaviorally, they were looking for a blue-eyed white guy, and killed a grey-eyed old lady with blue hair when �somebody� nobody knows pointed at him. Good thing she was armed.
And the coroner said they could not determine the ranges the shots were fired from � or chose not to � a false statement? Forensic handbooks for decades showed standardized tests on how to determine if the shot was barrel close, or say ten feet, or more; and type of firearm. The ranges suggested by the SGT (backstop) should leave not only powder burns, but partially burned power in the wounds. What of the LEOs uniforms, where are they? I would expect some spray when standing within ten feet of someone shot more than a half dozen times. Of the witnesses, did any actually witness the shooting and position of the shooters?

As a finer note, having some respect for the ADA, what does Scott�s last hearing test show? Nothing quite like gunning down the deaf or blind because you are a fearing for your life.

posted by Druid at October 5, 2010 07:05 PM

---

Sheriff's deputy mistakenly fires eight shots at robbery victim, misses

http://www.laindependent.com/news/local/west-hollywood/deputy-west-hollywood-liquor-store-clerk-shooting-sheriff-104253944.html

Via http://armsandthelaw.com/

Typical LEO quality?

As mentioned above, it is just dumb luck that the alleged tweaker Vegas LEOs expected was carrying.

posted by Druid at October 5, 2010 09:29 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

All I can say about 50 cal is "Wear ear protection and never shoot a snake in your garage with one."

posted by paul mitchell at October 4, 2010 08:58 AM

---

So what was it you were firing?

posted by russ harris at October 4, 2010 09:13 AM

---

I shot a .50 AE Desert Eagle at a range in Fayetteville back in '97. I had been directed to the rifle range where some guys next to me were shooting a Mossberg 500. When I opened up they both peeked around the partition and stood there gawking. After I had emptied the clip they mouthed 'WTF?'. I grinned, chambered and kept shooting until the one of the recoil springs snapped. When you can hear the report over a Moss 500 and ear pro then you know that is one loud 'Boom'.

posted by Dan Irving at October 4, 2010 09:17 AM

---

Nice clean holes. I am guessing semi wad cutters.

I was also at the range yesterday. Shooting .308 and 5.56.

posted by Professor Hale at October 4, 2010 09:56 AM

---

I was shooting a Templar Consulting "Broadsword," a quick-change multi-caliber system that presently comes set-up with 5.56, 6.5 Grendel, and .50 Beowulf barrels.

This one was configured with a 10-inch barrel chambered in .50 Beowulf, throwing 300-grain hollowpoints from Alexander Arms. I believe the hollowpoints were Hornaday, but don't quote me on that.

We also shot it in 5.56, but I didn't get any of that on video on my camera.

posted by Confederate Yankee at October 4, 2010 10:02 AM

---

That's not a bad group, what was the range?

.50 Beowulf in full auto sounds like fun, but, isn't it rather silly? What's the possible application that the Grendel round wouldn't also cover? I suppose if grizzlies started to attack in squads, but otherwise?

posted by ThomasD at October 4, 2010 10:29 AM

---

ThomasD,

The 6.5 Grendel and .50 Beowulf are completely different.

The 6.5 is a long-range optimized cartridge designed to excel at 500+ yards against medium-sized targets (humans, deer-sized game), using bullets in the 90-130 grain range. For tactical applications, it excels at counter-sniper and precision work.

The .50 Beowulf is a sledgehammer, firing bullets between 300-500 grains, optimized for use at short range. It is great for shooting in heavy brush, against dangerous game, and heavily armored human targets. As configured as I shot it, it would be a great entry gun for a tactical team against suspects wearing body armor, or for soldiers manning vehicle checkpoints.

Those groups were fired by Templar Custom's Bob Reynolds at about 10 yards (I think). Yes, that is short range, but is what the application would be firing that weapon in that mode.

I shot it full auto at 50 yards, and honestly don't know if I could keep 3 round bursts on a human target not matter how much I practiced. That said, it isn't designed to go full-auto at that range.

posted by Confederate Yankee at October 4, 2010 10:43 AM

---

The .50 Beowulf was intended for, among other things, breaching use and dismantling barricades. It will break apart cinder block and just about anything else that could be used for an improvised barrier. While it will dramatically and immediately provoke an attitude check by anyone shot by it, that isn't its primary purpose.

Rather, it's to encourage a bad guy to give up before getting shot.

posted by Steve Skubinna at October 4, 2010 01:00 PM

---

Incidentally, I like to shoot Buffalo Bore magnum .45/70 ammo from my Marlin 1895G. 450 grains at 1990 fps, that's sort of a frontier version of the concept.

posted by Steve Skubinna at October 4, 2010 01:03 PM

---

CY, I'm well aware of what the Grendel round is, I'm also aware of what a fantastic projectile a 6.5 mm can be. I've owned a sporterized Swedish Mauser and have used it on both mule and whitetail deer. In Scandinavia it is practically the standard moose gun.

Sure the the .50 Beowulf may have some limited usage, in hunting or tactical applications, but that was not my point. My point was that I can still think of no reason, nor have I been offered any reason, why this round would ever be useful *in full auto mode.* As I said, fun, but ultimately silly. (And I've got no problem with people owning or doing silly things.)

First off, if we are talking legal and ethical hunting of any type we can rule out select fire. Period. It is not an issue. We can also forget about the 'brush busting' myth; every bullet, no matter how heavy, can be deflected from it's intended target by the merest twig. The .50 Beowulf round is no better than any other commonly used round for dangerous game. If anything it is very limited in its effective range and terminal ballistics.

http://www.alexanderarms.com/beowulf_ballistics.pdf

(and that's all from a 24" barrel)

Lastly, if you are relying on its auto loading capacity to make up for poor shot placement you really need to rethink your approach to hunting.

Beyond that, in the tactical realm, choice of projectile in any given caliber makes a huge difference. A 130 gr softpoint 6.5 mm at close range is just as much a 'sledgehammer' on any human target. Sure you can talk about the dangers of over penetration if you wish, but then you need to consider whether the Beowulf round is built to defeat body armor. Because if it is then 300 grains of bullet going roughly 1200-1500 f.p.s. out of that short barrel isn't going to be stopped by much either.

Sure, a .50 Beowulf can be used as a breaching round, albeit unlikely in full auto, and there are much better options available for that application, particularly frangible shotgun rounds or real breaching charges.

As a sub-gun entry weapon it is an over-horsepowered alternative to a full house 10mm, or even NATO 9mm, and as a crewman, or checkpoint weapon it is woefully under ranged with a rainbow like shot path(and per round the ammo weighs a ton)

Marketing guys know what makes people smile, and I give them credit for delivering the goods. Hammering a target with a mag full of that stuff had to be fun (even more fun if you weren't footing the bill.)

But sometimes it is important to know whether you are buying the sizzle or buying the steak. A .50 Beowulf in full auto is pure sizzle.

posted by ThomasD at October 4, 2010 02:17 PM

---

Sure the the .50 Beowulf may have some limited usage, in hunting or tactical applications, but that was not my point. My point was that I can still think of no reason, nor have I been offered any reason, why this round would ever be useful *in full auto mode.* As I said, fun, but ultimately silly. (And I've got no problem with people owning or doing silly things.)

Okay, I think we may be mis-communicating, so let me back up.

I agree that .50 Beowulf has limited utility in full-auto mode. A full 10-round magazine empties blindingly fast. That said, would think it could be useful for actual checkpoint contact-distance vehicle inspection work, and it is certainly useful for breaching in a scenario when the breacher is also your point man and may not have time to transition to another weapon, and does wonders reducing walls a 5.56 can't penetrate. Also, that target was shot at from room distances, full-auto, so I think it might work decently in that role. I can't say I'd want SWAT using it, but it would certainly work for military shooters.

You also need to keep in mind that the weapon is a system, and the 5.56, 6.5 and .50 all use the same receiver. The .50 was fun, but the auto feature was certainly included with the 5.56 in mind, and the capability to fire other calibers like that is just a bonus.

posted by Confederate Yankee at October 4, 2010 02:55 PM

---

Man, after checking out the pic and reading the comments, I feel like I need to go get a tattoo or something to kick up my testosterone level a notch or two. I suddenly feel woefully inadequate.

posted by gcw at October 6, 2010 10:33 AM

---

I shoot a mossberg plinkster 22s, at those iron spinner targets. Where does that rate on the manly meter?

posted by brando at October 7, 2010 04:16 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Shultz doesn't have the Koch Bros. & Rupert Murdoch and his Foxettes to help him.

posted by Phil Silverman at October 3, 2010 12:25 AM

---

No, 'Sgt' Shultz [I know nuthink!!!] only had the help of "400 organizations" since April [according to them].

I guess George Soros took a pass, hmmmmm?

Pretty lame defense. I'll wait for the "satellite" photos. The only ones I've seen so far so a crowd of less than 1/4 that of Beck's. Pretty much matches the ratings, I'd guess.

Losers.

posted by jorgxmckie at October 3, 2010 01:18 AM

---

What was interesting also, were pictures of AFTER the rallies. When Becks crowd left, the grounds were clean enough to eat off, but when the progressive crowd left, the grounds looked like a fleet of garbage trucks exploded. So much for the environmental liberals.

posted by AndyJ at October 3, 2010 07:26 AM

---

No, what was the most interesting and screamingly funniest thing was cnbc using photos from the BECK rally to illustrate their story - at least until they got called on it a few times, HAHAHAHA.

posted by emdfl at October 3, 2010 08:23 AM

---

The cleanliness is a metaphor for the two mindsets. One take responsibility for their own actions, the other expects someone else to do it for them.

posted by Tregonsee at October 3, 2010 08:24 AM

---

I see no graph at the link :(

posted by Kevin at October 3, 2010 12:54 PM

---

Oh haha I get it. You meant paragraph. Duh. I opened the link in Firefox, IE and Chrome to see if I was somehow blocking a graph :).

posted by Kevin at October 3, 2010 12:55 PM

---

Shultz doesn't have the Koch Bros. & Rupert Murdoch and his Foxettes to help him.

What a target rich comment. Sooo... If Murdoch is "polluting" our minds, what does it say that your Ted Turner "pollution" has only a quarters worth of reach?

Fox can marshal more people than CNN+MSNBC+PBS+NPR+NBC+ABC+CBS combined?

The left can only corral half as many people into the mall as tea party members freely chose to attend?

Be scared leftists, and be scared media-whore republicans. We already have term-limits - and many in Washington are just now realizing this.

posted by bains at October 3, 2010 08:48 PM

---

Big government is doomed. Socialism a failed experiment. Communism a failed path. We shall not kneel to government nor those whoe imagine they rulat rather than serve. I already have a mother and father and they never were in Washington D.C.

posted by Odins Acolyte at October 4, 2010 05:45 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

A commenter asked why officers are allowed to keep their weapons when under suspicion in a shooting. Officers are citizens and are entitled to the presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty. In addition, in the daily pursuit of their duties, even the most competent, scrupulously honest officers make enemies, many of whom are not known to them, enemies who might be tempted to take revenge if they suspected an officer did not have the means to protect himself or his family. If a case is so clearly egregious that an officer is under arrest or likely to be arrested, their superiors may take possession of their weapon(s). This option is always open, but generally not used in any but the most obvious cases. Every police agency has its own internal policies and procedures, but the rationale I�ve outlined is quite common.

UPDATED TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE:

(1) Officer William Mosher fired first and believed he shot Scott twice in the chest, but Medical Examiner testimony placed one of his shots in Scott�s chest and another in Scott�s thigh, though which thigh is, at the moment, unclear. This pattern of shooting would be consistent with high stress shootings where the first shot is more or less on target and the second or subsequent shots are substantially lower as the officer �jerks� the trigger, thrusting the muzzle downward.

(2) Officer Thomas Mendiola fired four shots, reportedly all striking Scott in the back. Mediola testified that he believed that each shot was made necessary by the continuing danger posed by Scott. As analysis will establish, such �danger� was surpisingly brief. However, it has also been established, as mentioned in Update 3.2, that one of these rounds struck Scott in the buttocks and traveled upward through his torso coming to rest in his chest. With this updated information, a scenario that may be more accurate than any we�ve been able to propose before is now possible.

(3) Officer Joshua Start fired one shot, but where it struck is unclear. The ME testified that one round hit Scott in an armpit, apparently under an upraised arm, but it�s not clear whether Mendiola or Start fired that shot. It is unlikely that Mosher fired that particular shot for reasons that will be addressed shortly.

(4) Las Vegas Firefighter/EMT Chris Thorpe was among the first medical personnel to treat Scott. He found Scott facedown and handcuffed with no heartbeat and no breathing and asked the police to remove the cuffs. The officers complied and Scott was placed on a backboard and into an ambulance. While enroute to the hospital, Thorpe found a .380 Ruger semiautomatic handgun (which appeared to be an LCP model in a photograph of a Metro detective displaying it during the Inquest) in one of Scott�s pockets--presumably his pants pocket, and magazines in the other. He gave them to an officer who was accompanying them. While the LCP is a small handgun, missing the weapon and several magazines in Scott�s pants pocket does not speak well of the officers and may offer some insight into their post shooting states of mind.

(5) Officer Mosher testified that Scott was asked to leave by Costco employees and refused. In the transcript, Costco Security Employee Shai (pronounced �Shay�) Lierley told the dispatcher several times that Scott was told that weapons weren�t allowed, but did not tell the dispatcher that Scott was asked to leave, nor did the dispatcher ask that particular question. However, in the partial radio transcript, a dispatcher does tell responding officers that Scott was asked to leave, despite not being specifically told this by Lierley. Mosher also said that Costco told the police that Scott was showing signs of �ED� or �excited delerium.� The 9-11 transcript does not support this contention. Lierley was, as far as is currently known, the sole Costco employee providing information via cell phone to the police dispatcher as he followed Scott throughout the store. While Lierley did say that Scott was possibly under the influence of drugs, he also said that Scott �...may just be really hyperactive...� However, a dispatcher did tell responding officers �Male is possibly ED.� Apparently, the dispatcher made an assumption about this and used common police jargon, but in so doing, may, combined with telling the officers that Scott refused to leave, have unintentionally ratcheted up the degree of danger Scott represented in the minds of the responding officers. In this, Mosher testified truthfully about what he knew, but what he knew was likely false or at best, an unintentional misrepresentation.

(6) There is continuing confusion regarding the commands given by the officers prior to shooting Scott. A transcript of the 9-11 call introduced at trial indicates the following commands, all delivered in the space of a few seconds: �Put your hands up where I can see them, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground.� Witnesses have testified to these commands (and more): �Don�t do that, don�t do that, get on the ground, drop it, get down, drop your weapon.� Listening to the 9-11 transcript, I could clearly hear �Get your hands where I can see them,� immediately followed by gunshots. I am unaware of any clear accounting of which officers spoke which of these commands, to say nothing of any others, in which order and in response to which actions by Scott--if any. However, the 9-11 transcript, difficult as it can be to understand (more on this in the analysis section), suggests that there were a number of conflicting commands delivered by more than one officer within the span of a few seconds, giving Scott little or no time to understand or respond.

(7) The police testified that the Costco video recording device was broken prior to the shooting and not repaired until thereafter, thus, absolutely no video of Scott�s actions inside the Costco store or of the shooting itself is available. Shai Lierley�s testimony supported the police account, stating that on July 7th, the Wednesday before Scott�s shooting on Saturday, July 10th, all store video was broken and was not repaired until after the shooting. That a major chain retail store in a major city would allow all of its security video to be out of service for even a day, let alone most of a week, beggars belief. Allowing their best source of defense against false claims and frivolous lawsuits to be out of order for one second longer than necessary suggests gross negligence on the part of Costco management. This is particularly true in Las Vegas, which has no shortage of state of the art video equipment and equipment suppliers, and even if this was not so, Los Angeles, where virtually any kind of related equipment can be had, is only a day trip (4 hours, 20 minutes according to Google Maps) away. Even if parts or equipment had to come from across the nation, virtually anything can be delivered overnight. The alternative explanation is substantially less innocent.

(8) Lierley also added interesting testimony that was apparently not echoed by any other witness. Remember that Lierley was following Scott while speaking to a dispatcher by cell phone. He was obviously close enough to the entrance to see the shooting (he told the dispatcher he was about ten feet away from Scott), but was just as obviously behind Scott. Lierley testified that an officer--presumably Mosher--touched Scott, who pushed his arm away. Lierley testified that Scott immediately raised his left hand above his shoulder while simultaneously going for his gun on his right side with his right hand. Lierley demonstrated these motions while testifying and his right hand went to his hip as if Scott�s holster was on his right hip. However, it is clear that Scott�s weapon was holstered at the small of his back under his shirt. The motion Lierley demonstrated could not have allowed Scott to reach that handgun. Nothing supporting this account is audible on the transcript.

(9) Howard Brooks, a public defender, testified that he saw Scott �walking normally� with all of the other customers leaving the store. Brooks said that Mosher yelled �drop it,� and fired instantly. Brooks testified that Scott began falling forward when two other officers (Mendiola and Start) approached and fired into Scott�s back. Brooks testified that he made a point of looking for a gun, but did not see one. Brooks is the witness that the prosecutors took pains to discredit, and considering his testimony, that�s understandable.

(10) Clayton Phillips, a Costco employee, testified that officers yelled �get down, drop your weapon� and that Scott reached for his gun, causing the officers to fire. His recollection of the commands issued differs significantly from the many differing versions in the recollections of others.

SHOOTING ANALYSIS:

I�ve suggested a possible shooting scenario in past updates. Then and now I am hampered by a lack of a complete Inquest transcript which may or may not answer all of the questions necessary to know with certainty what happened, particularly since no cross examination, which would have allowed much greater detail to emerge, was allowed. If no video of the shooting is ever produced, the task is not impossible, but much more difficult. What remains unknown (and please, gentle readers, if you know where to find this information, let me know) is the exact location of each officer throughout the encounter, the muzzle to impact distance of each round fired, the exact sequence of firing and location of impact of each round, their tracks through Scott�s body to their eventual resting places as well as many other pertinent factors. Accordingly, any analysis at this point may be incorrect in few or many ways, but there is value in trying to understand and reconcile conflicting testimonies. And there would be value for Scott�s parents in seeing that a competent, independent autopsy is conducted as soon as possible to conclusively gather this information. Hopefully, it has not deteriorated or been altered or destroyed. Known testimony does suggest a more narrow range of possibilities than those of a week ago.

It now seems virtually certain that Scott was directly facing Officer Mosher throughout the confrontation and that the range from his muzzle to Scott�s body was quite short which would have greatly aided his marksmanship if the police account of only seven rounds fired, all of which hit Scott, is accurate. Mosher�s first shot likely struck Scott in the chest, and his hurried second shot was �jerked,� by a heavy, reflexive pull of the trigger and squeezing of the grip of his handgun rather than a consistent, progressive squeeze of the trigger in insolation, downward, striking Scott in the thigh.

To this point, it has been unclear exactly how Scott came to be shot in the back, but all testimony to date seems to indicate that after being shot by Mosher, Scott fell immediately to his knees and from there, in one continuous motion, to his face on the ground. In other words, immediately after Mosher�s rounds hit Scott, he began falling forward, toward Mosher, ending up prostrate, face down on the ground, closer to Mosher than he was when Mosher opened fire.

Within a second, likely less, Officers Start and Mendiola opened fire, again probably from close range, and at least Officer Mendiola must have been firing from behind Scott as he fell to his knees and then forward onto his face. This would explain the round that struck Scott in the buttocks and tracked through his torso into his chest. This round was likely fired last, hitting Scott as his upper torso pitched forward while his knees remained in contact with the ground, leaving Scott�s torso momentarily a bit less than parallel with the ground, his head slightly below the level of his buttocks. Unless the officer who fired this shot was on or near the ground when he fired--and there appears to be no such testimony--this is the only rational explanation currently available to explain this shot. At this point, Scott�s back would have been extremely difficult to hit unless an officer was standing almost directly over Scott, pointing his weapon almost straight downward. This scenario also accounts for the tendency of repeated rounds often to track downward due to trigger jerking. Paradoxically, this would have prevented the Officers from shooting each other. Officer Mendiola, rather than calmly and with deliberate, expert trigger control, lowering his muzzle with each shot to track Scott's falling back, jerked shots two through four, driving the muzzle consistently downward and by chance (to say nothing of dumb luck), ensuring that those rounds would strike Scott rather than Mosher or bystanders. The rounds may have even assisted gravity in driving Scott�s upper body forward. If this scenario is correct, the bullet tracks for at least some of these rounds should have been angled upward, back to front, as Scott�s body pitched forward.

Still unexplained is the round that struck Scott in the armpit. This would have essentially required that Scott�s arm be raised, which would be particularly problematic for the police if the round struck Scott�s right armpit as it would indicate that his arm remained raised and was not, therefore, reaching for his handgun. This would also practically require that the officer, possibly Officer Start, was on Scott�s flank, perhaps toward his back, as he fired and not standing near Officers Mosher or Mendiola. It is also possible that Scott may have momentarily turned his side toward the officers behind him, but this too is currently not clear. The timing of this round, which was likely one of the two rounds that the ME testified struck Scott�s heart, is important in helping to determine Scott�s physical and mental capacities throughout the encounter, but is, as far as I can determine, still unknown, or at least has not been made public.

If the scenario took place as I have suggested, there are a number of additional problems for the police. The locations of bystanders and their exposure to police fire remains unknown. Were citizens standing between Officers Start and Mendiola and Scott? Could the Officers clearly see Scott and his every motion as he was confronted by Officer Mosher? From the beginning of the encounter until they ceased fired? Each of them? If Scott was in fact between Mendiola and Start and Mosher as would be required by the scenario I�ve suggested, the officers were essentially a circular firing squad, and Mosher was in the most immediate danger of being hit by friendly fire, particularly as Scott�s body dropped to the ground as his fellow officers poured fired into the rapidly diminishing target of his back. If this is indeed the case, and with what is known, it seems the most likely scenario, the three officers are fortunate indeed that they did not shoot themselves or innocent bystanders.

In Update 3.2, I noted Metro Captain Patrick Neville who assured the public that they were never in danger as the officers were careful to choose a pillar (as in one, single pillar) that supported a canopy as a bullet backstop. As I noted, for this to be even remotely plausible, all three officers must have been facing Scott and must have been closer than shoulder to shoulder so as to align their weapons in a direct line with the pillar as the termination point for any errant rounds, and with Scott�s body directly intersecting that straight line of fire. In addition, they would have had to have been capable of, within mere seconds of simultaneously realizing that they needed a backstop, seeing the pillar, recognizing its size and composition as appropriate to the task, and moving into position relative to Scott and the pillar to use it as a backstop. Absent this simultaneous thought process, we are apparently expected to believe that it was merely dumb luck that all of the stars, so to speak, aligned in a once-in-a-million-year happenstance. If the officers were not all facing Scott, Captain Neville�s assurance is rendered even more dubious as the officers were essentially using each other (and everything and everyone around them) as a backstop. A final major problem with the police version of supernatural attention to public safety is that unless the pillar was substantially wider than a human body and was made of materials that would absorb and hold, rather than deflect, incoming rounds, it would have served not as a backstop, but as a random ricochet generator. Most support pillars are made of concrete, structural steel, or some combination of these. Even rounds striking at a direct right angle in every plane would experience some degree of spatter (fragmentation of the lead core and copper jacketing of the bullets), potentially injuring those close by. At virtually any other angle, ricochets are a virtual certainty.

There remains one additional interesting item. The ME testified that she could not determine the distances of the Officer�s muzzles from the impact points on Scott�s body. Forensic scientists hired by Scott�s family should conduct gunpowder patterning and residue tests at varying distances using, if possible, the officer�s weapons and the same ammunition used during the shooting. If not, identical weapons and ammunition should be used. I do not suggest that the ME testified falsely, but at the ranges at which these rounds may have been fired, it seems unlikely that gunpowder tattooing was either not present or was so indistinct as to render any meaningful analysis impossible.

THE 9-11 AND PARTIAL DISPATCH TRANSCRIPTS:

In analyzing the 9-11 call, certain difficulties were apparent. The recording was taken from a recording of the original call, which was played on 09-23-10 in the Inquest and recorded on the spot by an unknown brand and model of video recorder in less than ideal acoustic conditions. While the voices of the dispatcher and Shai Lierley are consistently intelligible, there is substantial background noise of various kinds. While Lierley does not specify that he is speaking on a cell phone while following Scott throughout the store, the transcript strongly suggests that this is what he was doing. It is interesting that when the Dispatcher asked if and how Lierley was keeping Scott in sight (particularly asking if he was tracking Scott via camera), he said nothing at all about having no video capability, but only �I�m full observation.� If no video was available, wouldn�t Lierley have told the Dispatcher? The sounds of people talking and of the kinds of hubbub one commonly hears in busy, warehouse sized retail stores like Costco on a Saturday are also continuously audible in the background.

What is odd is that what appears to be police and dispatcher radio traffic can also be, more or less continuously, heard in the background. Please keep in mind that I do not have sophisticated audio filtering equipment and am relying on the Mark I Human Ear, two each, listening to a recording of a recording. That said, this is particularly odd as dispatchers are commonly supplied with individual headsets which incorporate sensitive microphones that virtually eliminate any background noise, even when they have opened their microphones to speak. This is a necessity in a busy dispatch center where multiple dispatchers are answering phones, talking with each other, clacking computer keyboards and speaking with multiple officers by radio. There is no question about the background noise coming from Lierley�s side of the conversation as cell phones generally have continuously open microphones, but it is quite unusual to hear the amount of apparent background noise coming from the police side of the conversation. In fact, there are several points in the recording, which lasts approximately 14:40, when background noise becomes overwhelming and eliminates coherent speech for lengthy periods. I am unable to determine the cause of this with the methods available to me.

The time stamp that accompanies the transcript begins with �Las Vegas Police,� at approximately 1:08. While intelligible, portions of the tape are difficult to understand, and it is impossible to be accurate to the tenth of a second, so all time frames should be considered to be approximate rather than absolutely definitive. My best guess is that they�re accurate to +-1 second. The entire transcript is not reproduced here. Much of the transcript is the kind of routine information gathering common to such calls and has no particular bearing on our analysis. One of the most significant problems that certainly will have some effect on this analysis is that the 9-11 transcript lasts approximately 14:40 while the radio transcript, which is billed as a partial transcript, runs for more than 17 minutes. Radio transmissions and my comments will be enclosed in brackets and indented.

1:11 (Shai Lierley tells the Dispatcher): �Ah, we just approached him because he had firearms on himself, and we�re telling him he can�t have a firearm inside our store...�

1:22 (SL): NO, we�re--we approached him right now telling him he can�t have a firearm, and he�s just acting a little erratic about it, telling me he�s a Green Beret, and he has a right to carry.

2:09 (Dispatch): �Where does he actually have it that you see it? SL responds: �Ah, it�s on the back end of him...� The dispatcher inquires further and SL says the weapon is �...tucked in the back of his pants...�

[By this point, it is likely that another dispatcher has made the initial radio call to officers. The partial radio time stamp shows this as 6:53. �Units in V3, a 413--man with a gun--at Costco...The male is inside the business to the rear of, has a 413--gun--that�s tucked into the back of his pants. We�re still landline.� Multiple officers and a police helicopter immediately acknowledge and head for the Costco. The 9-11 and radio transcripts time stamps are not synchronized, however, police records should be synchronized, or can be synchronized with proper equipment.]

2:20 (D): �Right. And he didn�t threaten anybody with it or anything like that?�

2:22 (SL): �No. It�s just that he�s acting real erratic, and then, uh, just like ripping open our products...�

[By this point, Lierley is speaking very rapidly and his voice is in a higher register. He is obviously excited. He does become calmer late in the recording.]

3:09 (SL): �He, he he may be high. I mean he�s just real fast real dodgity so...� (interrupted by the dispatcher).

3:17 (D): �Um, he-s--he�s not removing clothing or anything?�

[This is an odd question. Absent a specific reason to believe that Scott was taking off his clothing, such as the crime being reported was indecent exposure or something similar, it�s difficult to imagine why the Dispatcher asks it.]

3:19 (SL): �No."

3:20 (D): �So would you say he�s being violent to merchandise?�

[This too is an odd question. Few people who think that someone in a store is throwing merchandise about would infer that they were being violent toward merchandise, toward inanimate objects. Because it is the only question of this type, and because it is so brief, perhaps the Dispatcher is hunting for reasons to continue her belief that Scott is a dangerous, continuing threat, perhaps it's a sort of unusually lengthy verbalized pause, or she may just be thinking out loud before fully forming those thoughts.]

3:22 (SL): �Ah, yes, just--just throwing it around, and then trying to put all these canteens into one small bag. And when a couple managers have approached him and asked him if they could help, he starts saying no, he wants a certain type.�

[Approximately 1:10 later, at 8:03 on the radio timestamp, the Dispatcher tells the responding officers: �The male inside the business is acting erratic, throwing merchandise around, possibly high on unknown type of 446-- narcotics or drugs.� Remember that the radio transcript is not continuous. It�s not possible to tell exactly when these radio calls went out, but it may be reasonable to assume that this particular call would not have been made until the Dispatcher received the information from Lierley.]

[Approximately 13 seconds later, at timestamp 8:16, Dispatch transmits: �...they are requesting CIT--Critical Incident Team--Male is possibly ED--experiencing �excited delerium.� Lierley did not say this, so it�s apparent that this is an assumption made by the Dispatcher using common police jargon/verbal shorthand. However, this would have immediately ratcheted up the internal danger level indicator, as would calling for the CIT, in every responding officer�s brain.]

4:15 (D): �Do you have somebody in the front that can direct us to this guy?

4:16 (SL): �Ah, yeah. I mean (unintelligible).�

[At 5:12 Lierley is telling someone, repeatedly, to meet the responding officers �up front.�]

5:19 (D): �Is it still tucked into his belt?�

5:20 (SL): �Yeah, it�s tucked into the back end and with--with a concealed holster.�

6:20 (SL): �But he may just be really hyperactive or what not.�

7:18 (D): �Okay. Just let me know when you see them. Are you watching him on a camera?�

7:20 (SL): �No, ah, I�m full observation.�

7:21 (D): Okay. How is he behaving right now?�

7:22 (SL): �Ah, the same. He�s just like fidgety. Now he�s kinda like, ah, talking loud to his girlfriend right now, saying he has the right to carry his firearm.�

[Notice that Lierley has moderated his initial characterization of Scott, who is now, perhaps merely �hyperactive, �dodgity,� or �fidgety.� Note too that Scott was not �talking loud� to Sterner, but was �kinda talking loud.� The Dispatcher does not inform the responding officers of what seems a significant change in Scott�s behavior, deescalating rather than escalating, as reported by Lierley.]

[Approximately 1:02 later, after the 8:16 transmission at 9:18, the Watch Commander transmits: �Have those units shut down code when they get close. Let�s not get this guy more excited than he already is.� This is obviously a wise decision. At 9:53, the Dispatcher transmits a description of Scott, which includes the location of his handgun.]

10:02 (D): �Right. Like if you would just let me know when where he goes until we get there.�

10:04 (SL): �Yeah. Yeah, yeah, no problem.�

10:16 (D): �...We have a unit that�s actually arriving, so let me know when you see them. And you have somebody waiting in front, right?�

[For approximately a minute at this point, there is loud static/background noise that makes understanding the 9-11 transcript virtually impossible.]

[Approximately 3:45 later, at 13:18, the Dispatcher radios: �It looks like the subject is still inside the business, argumentative with the manager who asked him to leave, telling him there�s no 413�s allowed inside the business, break (used on the radio when the person transmitting needs to stop for a second but intends to continue a longer transmission without interruption). The manager is a Green Beret and is allowed to carry a 413. He�s throwing merchandise around; he�s still in aisle 126 in the camping area, break. He appears to be fidgety. A female joined the male. She�s described as Hispanic, 30�s, black long hair, wearing black tank and blue jeans. Security�s going to be standing outside the business in front of, to wait for officers to direct, brea. He�s walking through the camping area towards the front of the business on the main aisle.�]

[Notice that the dispatcher has confused the manager with Scott, unless the manager was a Green Beret who was allowed to carry in the store. If this is the case, it�s possible that Scott was not calling himself a Green Beret, and Lierley and the Dispatcher were confused about that, but there appears to be no information clarifying this point. The Dispatcher also tells the officers that Scott has been asked to leave, but has refused. She did not get this information from Lierley, but apparently assumed it. �Throwing merchandise around,� was never clarified, but it�s reasonable to believe that the officers took it in its most threatening sense. And again, Scott was described as �fidgety.�]

10:21 (SL): �Yes.�

11:01 (D): �Do you see him yet, Shai?�

[By this point, an officer at the store has asked the Watch Commender for permission to �...start slowly evacuating people out of the business without alerting anybody...� and has received it. However, it appears that Costco simply made a PA announcement, without explanation, telling everyone to evacuate at once. The police interview of Samantha Sterner, made after the incident, revealed that when this announcement was made, she told Scott she thought he might be the cause, which surprised him. Nevertheless, they began calmly walking out of the store with all of the rest of the shoppers.]

11:02 (SL): �Ah, no ma�am.�

11:03 (D): �Yeah, they might be waiting for somebody else to get there. There�s actually quite a few units that are coming, Okay?�

11:13 (SL): �It was all like they had six big boys come in. And he ended up having a big old knife on him. We had one where another guy got stabbed.

11:17 (D): �Oh no.�

[This story, told by Lierley, may indicate a predispostion to overreact by local Costco security personnel based on recent incidents. The dispatcher�s �Oh no,� said with a tone of apparently genuine shock and surprise, is itself surprising as most Dispatchers in similar situations have no time for stories, embellishments, or ramblings by those to whom they are speaking, and rather than listen, tactfully redirect them.]

[At 14:06 on the radio time stamp, an officer, apparently at the store, transmits: �...manager says it�s escalating inside and he�s still talking loudly and destroying merchandise.� It is difficult to reconcile the 9-11 transcript with the radio transcript, so it is hard to determine where this information is coming from, possibly from a store manager who approached an officer with information that was, by then, outdated. It is apparently not from Lierley, but it would certainly have the effect of increasing the Officer�s sense of danger and urgency.]

11:18 (SL): �Henderson. Yeah, we were saying that we are playing it real safe on some of our shops now.�

11:21 (D): �Oh, heck yeah. You have to.

11:25 (D): �Which way is he walking?

12:01 (SL): �Um, up towards the front.�

12:02 (D): �And he�s walking fast?�

12:04 (SL): �Yeah, he�s...so...he, he�s lifting up his fire...well...he�s keeping it up but he�s keeping his hand on the firearm. Pulling up his pants.

12:07 (D): �He�s putting his hand on it?�

12:08 (SL): �Yeah, but he just took it back off. He was putting his hand on it. Pulling it up, but then...walking towards the front now...�

[What Lierley is observing is not at all threatening, and should be obvious to anyone who carries a concealed weapon, which will tend to pull one�s belt and pants continuously downward. Scott was merely readjusting his holstered handgun to ride more comfortably. In other words, he's trying to keep it concealed. Fortunately, it does not appear that this information was transmitted to the Officers, who, had they heard it, might have been even more nervous about the confrontation with Scott. At 15:45, an officer transmits �...we need units to clear these people out of here. We�re attempting to evacuate right now; get as many people out as possible.� At this point, none of the officers know who Scott is or where he is, yet they�re trying to evacuate the entire store. This is not good tactics.]

13:22 (D): �Is he walking out?�

13:23 (SL): �Yeah, are we are we...evacuating the building.�

14:03 (D): �Now are they, uh, is he walking outside now?�

[An Officer radios at 17:36: �We�ve got two officers here at the front doors watching everybody come out.� Seconds later, the Dispatcher transmits that she is still speaking with Lierley by phone and employees are still watching Scott �...due to him ripping open packages. They�re concerned of a 414A.� It appears that the Dispatcher is reiterating prior information as the 9-11 transcript indicates that Scott was opening packages some time earlier, but not at the time of this transmission. Adding that Scott is committing a �414A,� a petty thief, is strange at this point in the incident, considering the seriousness of the potential threat posed by Scott. Perhaps the Dispatcher realized she had not yet mentioned that possibility and decided to add it to be sure she covered all bases.]

14:05 (SL): �Yes, he�s about ten feet away. I see the officer standing at the door right now.�

14:07 (D): �Who is?�

14:08 (SL): �I see the officers right now.�

14:09 (D): �You see them?�

14:10 (SL): �Yes.�

14:11 (D): �And do they see him?�

14:12 (SL): �Ah, negative.�

14:13 (D): �Have they walked out the door right now? What is that guy doing right this...�

14:16 (Unidentified Officer�s Voice(s) in Background): �Put your hands where I see them now, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground...�

[At 14:18, multiple, rapidly fired gunshots can be clearly heard in the background.]

[Officer call sign 2V16, probably Mosher, at 19:11, radios, and the transcript indicates he�s yelling: �2V16, we got shots fired, shots fired!� The Dispatcher asks if anyone is down and 2V16 does not directly reply, saying only �Roll medical.� Approximately 27 seconds later, 2V16 is asked if it is safe for others to enter the building. He does not respond to this question but blurts out: �He pulled a 413 and pointed it in my direction.� Is this an officer who is still unsettled by the shock of a shooting, or an officer trying to get information on the record that he knows will help him later? This was apparently not pursued at the Inquest.]

14:19 (D): �Shay. Hello. Shay.�

14:20 (SL): �He pulled a firearm. Yeah, I�m here, I�m here.�

14:22 (D): �Where is he?�

14:23 (SL): ...shots have been fired, shots have been fired.�

14:25 (D): �I just heard? You hear shots fired Shai?�

15:02 (SL): �Yes I did, shots have been fired.�

15:03 (D): �Who, who fired them?�

15:04 (SL): �The Officers...firearm. You have a man down.�

15:08 (D): �Shai, I�m gonna disconnect. Okay?�

[After about a minute of the loudest static and background noise in the entire transcript, the call abruptly stops, but at 15:15 another caller from Costco calls dispatch to report shots fired. The call lasts until 16:13 when the dispatcher disconnects and says �Oh my God.� The significance of this exclamation, and who made it, are unknown.]

[At 1957, AIR5, apparently transmitting from a police helicopter, radios: �They�ve got him out front, they�re taking him into custody. Hold the traffic.� Scott is apparently being handcuffed. The Dispatcher acknowledges and repeats this information. Other officers radio instructions to prevent anyone from leaving Costco so that they can find witnesses. The transcripts ends approximately 15 seconds later.]

ANALYSIS:

Because of the difficulty reconciling the transcripts, it�s difficult to be precise, however, a number of important issues have been, if not absolutely established as fact, at least, clarified.

(1) The frequent bursts of obscuring background noise, particularly at the end of the 9-11 tape, may be nothing more than technical glitches, but considering the real possibility of the Police mishandling other evidence, may be more sinister. It is, at this point, not possible to tell which.

(2) The Dispatcher�s comments about Scott�s actions and his physical state are only partially accurate. That, and their timing, almost certainly contributed to the continuing escalation of potential danger in the minds of the Officers.

(3) Lierley, is clearly following Scott and keeping him in sight while talking to the Dispatcher by cell phone. Having initially described Scott as being dangerously under the influence of drugs, his later observations sound like a man who is trying to �walk back� his initial observation without making himself seem like an inexperienced alarmist (police officers commonly look down on security guards, and all are aware of this). There is, after all, a substantial difference between someone who is out of control due to drugs, and someone who is only �hyperactive,� or then �dodgity� (whatever that means) and finally, �fidgety� (whatever that means). It seem likely that Lierley observed a man who was, after their initial contact, acting, if not absolutely normally at all times, perhaps a little unusually, but Lierley apparently did not know how to back down. Some of the dispatcher�s odd questions and comments remain inexplicable and did not help to deescalate the situation.

(4) The directions given by Lierley of Scott�s movements and locations are, at best, confusing and are never properly clarified by the Dispatcher. No responding officer would have a clue where �aisle 126� was, but if told that Scott was in the NW section of the building, or was 20 yards from the entrance doors, walking toward them, would have the information they needed. Dispatchers are trained to gather this kind of information, but apparently failed completely in this portion of her task. The result was that the officers were completely surprised by Scott�s abrupt appearance--and his identification--among them.

(5) The Radio transcript establishes that Officer call sign 2V16 said that two officers were at the Costco door. If 2V16 is Officer Mosher (and this is likely), it is probable that the two officers at the door were Start and Mendiola, which fits the shooting scenario I have suggested in this update. The transcript also indicates that what one officer hoped would be a controlled, low key evacuation, inadvertently turned into a simultaneous mass exodus with Scott, unaware of exactly what was happening, just another face in the crowd. The officers had no idea who Scott was, where he was, or what he was doing from minute to minute, and had no control of the situation. However, virtually every Dispatch update on Scott would have elevated the danger level on Officer�s internal threat displays.

(6) Neither transcript reveals which Costco employee identified Scott to the officers, but it is likely Lierley who, only seconds before the officers fired, told the Dispatcher that he could see Scott at the door and was only ten feet away.

(7) From the moment the Officer, probably Mosher, yelled �Get your hands where I can see them� until he fired two shots in rapid succession, only approximately two seconds elapse. The additional five shots are fired with a lapse between Mosher�s shots and theirs of only a fraction of a second, and the entire sequence of events, from Mosher�s yelled command and the final shot is only three to four seconds (from the first command until Lierley told the Dispatcher that shots had been fired, only seven seconds elapsed). It is also clear that a variety of confusing, contradictory commands were coming at Scott, from the Officer in front of him, and likely from two Officers behind him who he could not see, only adding to his shock and confusion.

The Officers were clearly caught by surprise to find Scott, a man who moments earlier walked past them and was obviously unremarkable, suddenly identified as the suspect, in their midst. Drawing down on him, their commands and responses were hasty, uncoordinated, and everyone in the immediate area including themselves was in danger, but not from Scott, from the Officers, who were likely pointing their weapons at each other with Scott between them (due to "tunnel vision" they would almost certainly have been unaware of the danger). Scott had, from the sound of the first command, only about two seconds to save his life. Witnesses testified that he was clearly �surprised�-- anyone would be--but given the time frame, he did not have sufficient time to respond to any command before being shot in the heart, and if he did, in fact, reach toward his right side, it may have been nothing more than a last ditch reaction to the surprise and stress, an attempt to disarm himself and defuse the situation. It was almost certainly not an attempt to shoot the Officers.

Officers did try to employ good tactics in evacuating the store, but did not pay attention to the details necessary to correctly implement those tactics, such as first establishing who Scott was and where he was so that the evacuation could isolate him, rather then compel him and every other shopper to leave en masse. In police work, Officers dealing with dangerous situations often have only seconds to think, decide and act. In this case, they had many minutes, by their usual standards a luxurious span of time. Yet the Officers did not use that time to observe Scott to form their own judgements of his behavior and intent. They did not use the time to positively locate his firearm. They made no affirmative attempt to separate him from the other shoppers. They did not have time for any concern for the positions of innocents before firing, or to consider safe backstops for their fire.

The Officers were never in control of the events; events controlled them, something that all Officers are taught is a worst possible outcome of any situation. Nor was Scott, who surely had no criminal intent, who almost certainly had no intention of harming anyone, in control of events. The sheer size and nature of the police response also contributed to the almost certain outcome.

(8) Officers overlook potential weapons on suspects every day of the week, however, all officers are taught to assume that if a suspect has one weapon, they have more. In this case, the officers had more than enough time and more than enough cause to search Scott thoroughly for an additional weapon. Their negligence in failing to find the .380 ACP Ruger pistol and its magazines, which any competent pat-down should have easily discovered, is disturbing and may speak to a variety of causes other than mere negligence, but insufficient evidence currently exists to venture a reasonable opinion. As the weapon was not a factor in this shooting, the police should be credited with bringing up an embarrassing detail in the Inquest, however, they may have done this primarily to more completely discredit Scott.

The analysis of this shooting is nearing an end. In the next, and likely final, update for the foreseeable future, we�ll explore where the case is, and what will likely happen in the next year or so. We will, of course, continue to provide updated information as it becomes available.

� Hide "The Erik Scott Case: Update 4"

---

Thank you Mike for your detailed and insightful analysis. I'm grateful that someone with your experience and training has taken the effort to analyze this. Hopefully it will prevent similar tragedies in the future. Please consider following this in the future if more information from a civil trial or other medium becomes available. I'm very grateful that where I live the law enforcement officers are better trained and have more common sense. They also seem to do a great job policing their own ranks and have a great relationship with the public. May the Almighty bless you for your past, and continued, service to our Republic and its people.

posted by Concerned Citizen at October 2, 2010 11:30 PM

---

In Update 3.2, I noted Metro Captain Patrick Neville who assured the public that they were never in danger as the officers were careful to choose a pillar (as in one, single pillar) that supported a canopy as a bullet backstop...

You can us bing "costco,summerlin,nv" maps and get a good aerial (birds eyes) view of the front entrance. bing images also has a street level view of the front entrance as well.

Based upon the tire shop being on the right, I guess that the checkout and exit is on the right.

Looks to me like he was killed within three paces of the exit door.

posted by Drive By at October 3, 2010 01:36 AM

---

I can't help but think of the scene from the slapstick movie "Police Academy" (or a sequel) when there is a standoff, SWAT and a bunch of cops show up, a gun discharges accidentally, and every cop starts shooting, including the SWAT guy with at the catering truck getting a donut.

I suspect this kind of thing happened. Cop #1 fired twice, hitting center-mass and then the thigh. Cops #2 and #3 fired when they saw #1 fire, putting 5 (?) more shots into Mr. Scott.

Was #1 justified? Possibly .. I think he gets the benefit of the doubt at this point, although it is a close call. Were #2 and #3 justified? Probably not, unless there is some policy or practice that says shoot when your mates are shooting. But in all likelihood #1 killed him, so #2 and #3 are off the hook.

HOWEVER .. under no circumstances should any of those three carry a weapon or a badge ever again, as they clearly do not have the presence of mind or temperament to deal with a tense situation.

Erik Scott did not have to die that day.

posted by Tom J at October 3, 2010 01:49 PM

---

["Erik Scott did not have to die that day."]

Indeed Tom. What percentage would you give to Erik in contributing to his own demise? Could have Cop #1, #2 and #3, all evaluated the threat level equally in those seconds of sequence?

Dissimilar to the weeks MM and CY had to analyze and critique the incident, the Officers should only be judged with the information known at the instant of occurrence. Anything else would be adjusted knowledge, as they say.

posted by Buck T at October 3, 2010 03:13 PM

---

Will the DOJ file charges against the officers for violating the civil rights of Scott? I doubt it but the family should push for it. Also the family should file a lawsuit against the police department, Costco and individually against the Costco security person, the dispatcher and the police captain. Las Vegas police have a history of shooting first and then getting the facts to coincide with their take on the incident.

posted by Ken at October 3, 2010 03:34 PM

---

@Buck .. "Indeed Tom. What percentage would you give to Erik in contributing to his own demise?"

Perhaps 10%.

Certainly, it wasn't a completely random situation. He could have done lots of things to not get dead, most obviously to walk out the door as soon as the manager approached him.

But it is clear that, once the three cops raised their guns and started yelling conflicting orders, he was going to die. The cops seemingly were looking for a reason to shoot.

It is also clear that ..
1- he had no gun in his hand when CALMLY leaving the store.
2- his behavior when the police arrived and during the evacuation was not remarkable.
3- the police observed nothing which justified drawing their own guns on the man.
4- The situation was calm and quiet until the police drew their guns and started screaming.

So what exactly is the legal justification for the officers raising their guns and stopping him?

The idea that one should have to be calmer, more thoughtful, and more disciplined than the police in order to survive a confrontation is silly.

"Could have Cop #1, #2 and #3, all evaluated the threat level equally in those seconds of sequence?"

The evidence (including their own testimony) shows that Cop #1 fired first. Clearly then, #2 and #3 saw no need to fire until #1 fired. So the answer to your question is a clear no.

The final outcome of this really needs to be dramatically improved training and screening of LVPD officers.

posted by Tom J at October 3, 2010 06:44 PM

---

Mike,

I have not visited this particular site before, but linked here from another blog that I read daily. I have been following the Erik Scott case through various other blogs and news excerpts. Your analysis is very good and I have a few comments to add in reference to some things that were said.

I have been a police officer for 25 years and have been involved in shooting incidents both as a civilian and as a police officer, so I can speak with some knowledge of what a person experiences during a shooting incident. As a supervisor I also try to stay on top of the latest research involving officer use of force. Some of the questions about the dynamics of the incident with Erik have been extensively researched with regard to similar situations involving officers use of deadly force and the results of that research can be accessed at Force Science Research, Ltd.'s website.

Before you and your readers assume that I will take the side of the cops automatically, let me say that I have been following this incident because I felt that the officers may have shot Erik unjustifiably. your analysis has given me a more detailed picture of what happened that day at Costco, and I now think that a number of factors came together to create in effect a "perfect storm" that resulted in Erik's tragic death.

I think that you are 100% correct in thinking that some of the things which were put out by dispatch may have increased the officers' level of perceived danger while responding to the call.

I also think that Erik had some degree of responsibility in the chain of events that lead to his shooting by LVMPD.

In addition, the actions taken by Costco's management and security personnel played a hugely negative role in what went down, and only served to enhance the danger present for Erik, their employees, the responding officers and all the Costco customers present during this incident.

Lastly, the responding officers actions in the immediate moment of the confrontation with Erik may have made the difference between what became a "shoot" scenario instead of a "no shoot" scenario.

One thing I will tell you, is that officers are confronted every day, all across this country with situations such as this one, which can go bad in a matter of milliseconds if only one of a myriad of different factors involved with human interaction under stress plays out in the wrong way.

Ken made the comment that LVMPD has a "history of shooting first and then getting the facts to coincide with their take on the incident". I hope that is not true. Most police officers don't go to work thinking "I'm gonna cap somebody today".
What they do go to work thinking is "I want to go home after shift to my wife and kids".

Most cops dread ever getting into a deadly force situation. They know that a decision to shoot somebody, that they had to make in LESS than one second, while under life or death stress,will be analized, dissected and parsed for weeks, months or even years afterward.

Some of the contributing factors to this incident that I picked up out of your update here make me think that I may have fired also if in the same situation as the three LVMPD officers, whereas before, reading other blogs, news stories, etc. I had serious doubts about whether I would have. I am now going to go back and read YOUR previous posts about this story, since I am impressed with your analysis and presentation on this post.

I have some thoughts about why it went down exctly as it did based on what you have outlined here. Why the officers reacted in the way they did and fired when they did. Also, why all three officers fired, why Erik was hit in the back and why the officers may have been totally unaware of their backstop when they opened fire. Tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, and time dilation are all real and I experienced them all in my shootings.

I also have an opinion as to what occurred post shooting with regard to handcuffing, the missed back-up gun, etc.

By the way, you mentioned that a commenter asked why officers are allowed to keep their guns after a questionable shooting. First let me say that ALL shootings by police officers are questionable until they have been investigated. It's not like on TV, where cops shoot somebody and go on about their merry way to shoot the next bad guy.

One of the things that has been found after many years of studying the dynamics involved with police shootings is that the old tactic of taking an officer's gun for evidentiary purposes in the aftermath of a shooting often led to severe psychological trauma to the officer. They often felt that they must be guilty of doing something wrong by being immediately disarmed at a moment when they were most vulnerable psychologically and emotionally, even though they knew that their gun needed to be placed into evidence.

An officer's gun still needs to be forensically tested, but most departments these days are aware of the studies about disarming offcers after a shooting. A lot of departments, my own included, now have a policy of a supervisor on scene providing his/her gun to the officer after the officer's gun is taken for evidence. it is also known now that officers should not be grilled about the incident in the immediate aftermath but given some time to regroup and recharge before detailed questioning because their recall will be much better.

Unfortunately, civilians involved in self-defense shootings are not afforded this. They have their gun taken for evidence, and are often put under immediate questioning. My advise to any of your civilian readers is if they go armed, have a lawyer you can call if the SHTF. Cooperate but don't talk immediately until you've had a chance to rest and gather your thoughts.

posted by Montie at October 3, 2010 07:41 PM

---

he was a dead man the moment 911 was called.

I read through all of that and I see no way that the cascading events were going to get him through it unharmed.

I can only hope all of the shooters and the store security live with nightmares the rest of thier lives.

posted by rumcrook at October 3, 2010 07:48 PM

---

Tom J,

Are you a police officer? have you ever been in a deadly force confrontation?

I have some thoughts on why the officers drew their guns, but I want to read Mike's previous posts before I comment further. I think that the actions of Costco management and security may have been the single biggest factor in why Erik was shot, because it put the officers in a situation which raised their anxiety levels and insured that they would be taken by suprise when they identified Erik as the person they were called about INSIDE their comfort zones.

I have been in many situations which involved several officers with drawn guns yelling conflicting orders to someone which did not result in anybody getting shot. It is unfortunate, but sometimes officers react to these situations by all trying to assume control at once, even if the department has policies which address this type of scenario.

Often in deadly force situations, when one officer perceives something which causes him to fire, other officers will fire also. This also happens in military settings. I'm not excusing it, just explaining it.

I also just do not buy your statement that the officers were seemingly looking for a reason to shoot. I know a lot of cops, and none of them approach their job in that type of mindset.

From what I have learned about Erik Scott in following this story, I believe that he was a hero and a true American, who fought on the side of right for this country and suffered injuries in the process. For him to survive combat and then be killed at home, BY THE POLICE no less, is just tragic. It shouldn't have happened, but I'm not sure the police were necessarily reckless or stupid...yet.

posted by Montie at October 3, 2010 08:09 PM

---

Just as a note to the disrobing question asked by the dispatcher. One of the signs of "excited delirium" is an elevated body temperature, and the person shedding clothing to compensate. Frequently this is connected with other violent behavior, and often (from what is currently understood) caused by drug use. IMHO it seems as if the dispatcher was relying on this knowledge & protocols & as you said, reading into the situation.

posted by Sean at October 3, 2010 08:47 PM

---

Every American should read "Dial 911 and Die" by Richard W. Stevens. It will make you take another look! They will learn that the police are under no obligation to protect you!!

posted by 1Fearless1 at October 3, 2010 08:52 PM

---

Sean,

You are correct. I have had to deal with several naked or semi-naked individuals over the past several years who were either delirious, high or both. it is indeed often a sign that officers might be going into a situation with a person who is in a state of "excited delirium".

1Fearless1

Unfortunately you are correct. Numerous court cases have established that the police in general have no obligation to protect any specific individual in any specific circumstance. We do try our best, but unfortunately, we usually get there in time to do the investigation after the fact. To use the tired old line once again, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away".

Calling 911 is no guarantee of anything. All cars may be tied up or the call-takers may all be tied up, or officers may not get good info and go into a situation thinking it is something that it is not.

posted by Montie at October 3, 2010 10:29 PM

---

Nice work.

IIRC, Scott's fiancee provided a sketch to the investigators as to where everyone was. You might contact Scott's father to see if he can provide it.

I'm still wondering what excuse the scene supervisor (a sergeant IIRC) is going to have as to why he was standing outside a locked door on the other side of the store after he asked Costco to evacuate everyone out the front. He might have just gone to lunch for all the supervision he provided.

FYI, I don't know about the Costco in question , but the Henderson NV Costco (off Sunset) has no signs prohibiting firearms as of Saturday (10/2).

posted by Kevin at October 4, 2010 01:24 AM

---

I have to correct something I said in my post to Tom J regarding Erik Scott's service record. I had gotten that information from one of my officers who is a current Army reservist (last deployed in 2007 to Iraq). He was the one who first brought this case to my attention, and I will now have to tell him that his "fallen hero" while a great guy by all accounts, was not a wounded special forces vet.

I have since learned that Erik was not injured in combat, but was taking painkillers for old football injuries and injuries sustained while a cadet at West Point. He was an armored officer while on active duty, and resigned his commission in either 1994 or '95 (the Army was on a draw down at the time, I resigned my commission in '92). In addition, he was not special forces (unless you count being a tank jockey special, and as an ex-infantryman I would take exception to that).

I have also learned that the Morphine levels in Erik's blood was about 5 times what is considered the lethal dose and that his Xanax level was above the therapeutic level. The Morphine level alone indicates a long term addiction which allowed his body to reach a resistance level that required such a large dosage.

I still respect Erik, as I do anyone who can get into West Point and do well there. However, his claiming to be a "green beret" when in fact he was no longer in the Army, and never served in special forces, reminds me of too many homeless alcoholics I have dealt with as a cop who claim the same thing, but often were never even in the military.

While long term addicts can often appear to function ok under such massive drug loads, it will usually have some effect on their cognitive abilities and physical responses in fast moving situations like occurred when he was confronted by the police.

I still think a "perfect storm" of small mistakes by several parties added together to end in this tragedy. Could the cops have done a better job? Of course. So could Costco's management and security, the dispatcher, and perhaps Erik himself.

posted by Montie at October 4, 2010 02:04 PM

---

Tom J:

The police received information Erik cause a disturbance or concern in the store, AND was seen with a firearm in the small of his back. At a minimum, it was the responsibility of the police to identify Erik and verify his firearm was legal. Clearly, Erik's response to the challenge by the police is what killed him. Any movement by Erik toward the area of the firearm on the body, would be contemptuousness at best and evidently, self-destructive at worst.

Regardless of which cop fired first (someone will always be first), why is it required for cop #1,#2 and #3 to fire in unison even if they agree on the same threat? Why would firing .25 seconds or .50 seconds later necessarily mean the 'I fired because everybody else fired' scenario? Did I not read MM's description of the police radio traffic as {"don't do that", then an immediate barrage of gunfire}?

You are correct, however, about not having drawn handguns when confronting an unknown 'man with a gun' report. They should of had rifles.

posted by Buck T at October 4, 2010 04:45 PM

---

There's a giant, glaring discrepancy. So far, all of the Costco employees have given specific testimony that Scott was drunk, stumbling, and slurred.

How does that jive with the contemporaneous statements that he's fidgety and agitated? How is someone who is allegedly so narcotized that he's presumed to have drawn a gun on uniformed officers for no reason is described, at the time, as "hyperactive"?

posted by Phelps at October 4, 2010 06:13 PM

---

I would like to exchange links with your site confederateyankee.mu.nu
Is this possible?

posted by bondarua at October 4, 2010 07:14 PM

---

Montie, who are your sources and what are your citations RE your claims about Erik Scott's history and biology?

posted by Acksiom at October 4, 2010 08:37 PM

---

"3:17 (D): �Um, he-s--he�s not removing clothing or anything?�

[This is an odd question. Absent a specific reason to believe that Scott was taking off his clothing, such as the crime being reported was indecent exposure or something similar, it�s difficult to imagine why the Dispatcher asks it.]"

People suffering from ED (excited delirium) often remove their clothing.

posted by Paul Schmehl at October 4, 2010 09:30 PM

---

"Within a second, likely less, Officers Start and Mendiola opened fire,"

I have listened to the 911 recording at least 40 times. The timing is as follows:

Mosher issues his first command "Put your hands where I see them".

Less than three seconds later, Mosher fires twice.

Less than two seconds later Stark fires. Another second later Mendiola fires four times.

Total elapsed time from the first command to seven rounds in Erik's body is just under six seconds.

posted by Paul Schmehl at October 4, 2010 09:33 PM

---

Buck T asks "Regardless of which cop fired first (someone will always be first), why is it required for cop #1,#2 and #3 to fire in unison even if they agree on the same threat? Why would firing .25 seconds or .50 seconds later necessarily mean the 'I fired because everybody else fired' scenario? Did I not read MM's description of the police radio traffic as {"don't do that", then an immediate barrage of gunfire}?"

Cop 2 (Stark) testified that he fired when he heard Mosher fire and he knew Mosher was in danger. That's not the same as firing when you perceive a deadly threat. His shot came about 2 seconds after Mosher's.

Cop 3 (Mendiola) fired because "he was still a threat". He shot four times, three seconds after Mosher fired, plenty of time to assess the situation and realize he was shooting a man who was down.

The shot sequences can be very clearly heard on the 911 tape; bang, bang two seconds, bang, one second, bang, bang, bang, bang.

Officer Stark testified that he fired once and then "assessed" and determined that Erik was no longer a threat.

Officer Mendiola testified that he fired because he heard the shots and determined the suspect was still a threat.

posted by Paul Schmehl at October 4, 2010 10:18 PM

---

Typical of the behavior coming out of police departments in this country. The police have proven yet again that they will not police themselves. Normally I would say "Fair trial, public execution" for the badge punks involved, but given the current of institutional corruption in police forces I fear it's going to take the assassin's bullet to balance the scales.

posted by NStahl at October 4, 2010 10:57 PM

---

Acksiom,

See the story in the on-line edition of the "Las Vegas Sun" for a detailed news article from Sept. 22nd which presented not only the testimony of the M.E. but several of Erik's doctors regarding his drug use.

But then, in the minds of many, I'm finding that they seem to firmly know exactly what happened in an incident that they were not present for. There seems to be a predisposition to believe that the police, the medical examiner, and numerous others have conspired to cover up something perceived as frighteningly criminal actions from an out of control police department.

Seriously guys, I got interested in this because one of my officers was concerned about it and thought I would be too, because we share a disdain for rogue cops and are both big supporters of all law abiding citizens being able to carry guns with little or no restriction. He thought it might have been a bad shoot and so did I initially. The drugs in Erik's system (that is if you believe the M.E.) may have been a factor in what happened, as were the actions of Costco's employees, and the actions of the police dispatcher, the involved officers and the supervisors on scene. The fact that Mosher has been in a previous shooting could mean something, or it could mean nothing more than having the bad luck to be in two fatal shootings. I know of a local officer who had the bad luck to be in three in a relatively short period of time. He was not overly aggressive or quick on the trigger. All three were situations where he simply had no choice. He was a strong Christian and it tortured him to no end. His supervisor finally had the brass pull him off the street because he got too timid and it was affecting those he worked with. After a period of recuperation and therapy he came back with no more problems.

I can't speak for the integrity of the LVMPD. I know that they are not generally regarded in police circles as an agency with problems like some of you have accused them of, but I don't work or live there.

None of you know me, other than I have SAID that I am a police supervisor with 25 years on the job. I could be some teenager sitting in my mom's basement throwing out opinions. At the same time, I don't know any of you. You can choose to engage on an adult level or not. But, making up your mind about an incident as serious as this, without taking in all the facts doesn't do justice for any of the involved parties, including Erik. I would add that making accusations of some kind of massive police cover-up needs to be backed up by facts, which is what I am trying to get to.

You can choose to believe me or not, in the end it really doesn't matter, but having been in shootings both as a civilian and as a police officer, I can tell you that these things happen in the blink of an eye. You make life and death decisions not in seconds, but in hundredths of seconds and you may not always be right.

No cop wants to think that he shot (and killed) somebody who didn't need to be shot, but it happens every day in this country. Will some cops lie in the aftermath when they think they made a mistake? Of course, it's human nature. But show me proof that is the case here with facts, not just because you believe it to be so. Are there officers who act maliciously at times? Yes, human nature again, but show me proof that these cops deliberately conspired together to kill Erik Scott. To what purpose?

Much has been made of the lack of video records from Costco's camera system. I can't tell you the number of times I have been frustrated, when investigating crimes, by a lack of video from large chain stores that you would think would stay on top of that sort of thing (Walmart and Target come to mind most recently). Of course the immediate assumption is that it was deliberately destroyed as part of the massive cover-up. Maybe, but maybe it was in fact just down for repair at the time of the incident. I'll bet it's working now. Perhaps because it was all along or maybe Costco management realized how important it was after this incident and got it fixed.

I am not your enemy, and neither is the average police officer in this country. If these LVMPD officers were in the wrong, it will come out. But I'm keeping an open mind until I have more to go on and you should too.

I would add that in most police departments of any size these days the brass are just not going to stick their necks out to cover up bad shootings or anything else that could bring in the Feds. It's far easier to just hang the patrol officers out to dry and play hero, claiming to have cleaned up the department of "bad cops".

posted by Montie at October 5, 2010 03:56 AM

---

Paul:

{knew Mosher was in danger.}
{"he was still a threat".}
{determined the suspect was still a threat.}

Sounds like the Officers truly believed Erik was a threat and that what's relevant on the scene, I would imagine. As for shooting Erik when he was "down", I believe the one buttock shot may have been fired when Erik was "down" or bent over. I sure Montie or MM will tell you it's common in live fire shoot houses, where 3D targets have the ability to fall when shot (either magnets or balloons), for police and military operators to track the target down while continuing to shoot. Much different that actually shooting someone that is "down".

Although, it is taught for some high end teams that are dealing with multiple opponents and have no immediate 'POW' facilities. Everybody that goes by puts a round in the head. This eliminates the possibility of a goal oriented opponent getting up and attacking from behind. I would hope this was NOT the application in Erik's case.

posted by Buck T at October 5, 2010 08:21 AM

---

One thing I will tell you, is that officers are confronted every day, all across this country with situations such as this one, which can go bad in a matter of milliseconds if only one of a myriad of different factors involved with human interaction under stress plays out in the wrong way.

Pure rhetoric and unresponsive to the situation here as well as its end result.

The dead man was a licensed CCW holder. This wasn't a "confrontation" except that the police, going all gung-ho, confronted a man and cost him his life.

On the streets of Reno a friend legally carrying a concealed pistol once felt a tug on his elbow. It was a LEO, partner in tow, hand on his weapon. (Nevada is both a CCW and open carry state, subject to precious few restrictions.) This alone was enough to instinctively cause the individual to momentarily consider if his licensed, registered, authorized, and properly concealed weapon was itself in immediate danger, and with it, himself.

Such confrontations run decidedly against the legal carrier, Montie. Your remark is rhetorical and is intended to constitute doubt and cover. The apparent fact you stand behind it speaks far more to the state of mind of most LEO's than it does the events described herein which killed an otherwise innocent man.

Be part of the problem or part of the solution. Given that LEOs -- armed public servants with the right to militarize, beat down doors, and shoot people to death -- are indeed under no obligation to actually, you know, protect and serve, then one is quite justified in assuming the LEO observes a code that serves primarily the LEO's interests.

This adds nothing to LEO credibility, and in fact, subtracts from it, bolstering the argument favoring the dead man.

posted by Ten at October 5, 2010 09:10 AM

---

The drugs in Erik's system...

The salient question is did Scott constitute a valid threat? To anyone at any time?

There is no evidence to say he did.

Then what was he? He was a permit holder, carrying legally.

posted by Ten at October 5, 2010 09:12 AM

---

The argument that these things tragically happen isn't an argument; it's a red herring that smooths over the core issue in favor of expressing a faux regret that allows everybody to shake their head, mutter something about human error, and get back to their day.

Given that the dead man was not shown to be a threat to anybody -- unless you consider bottled water or canteens or something beings being threatened -- calls into question the chain of command between a Costco employee, for crying out loud, and a squad of public servants that gunned a man down because, in very large part, he walked out of a retail establishment legally carrying his property, where he had to be identified for want of evidence.

That had better be one convincing chain of command. Of course, as the exhaustive record herein shows, it was not. It was, however, ruled by its own internal affairs checks and balances (such as they may be) as utterly justified. At which point we murmur something about such mysterious unavoidable-but-preventable tragedies and carry on.

The conclusion is that methods and procedures, rather than earning a meaningless 'tisk, tisk, wasn't that just the most tragic thing', are faulty.

They are faulty everywhere and they are reformable everywhere.

When I leave my home, there are two individual types I avoid at all costs: The road-rager and the cop. Given their resemblance out on the highways and byways, I consider them equal menaces to my utterly law abiding day. This is not how it should be, and speaking of which, the argument that most cops are good guys is equally specious.

posted by Ten at October 5, 2010 09:49 AM

---

That's not a cite, Montie, and we're not your secretaries, to be sent off to reproduce your research for you.

Cites Or It Didn't Happen, Montie. If you can't be bothered to take your adult responsibilities to back up your allegations properly, we can't be bothered to take them -- or you -- seriously.

posted by Acksiom at October 5, 2010 02:46 PM

---

Kudos, MikeM, for a sterling analysis.
Quibble: Please, please, please stop referring to the "9-11" call. It was a "9-1-1" call and confusion over the difference by civilians in the future can be just as tragic as was this case.

Excellent comments, Montie. Would like to read more from you after MikeM's next update.

I agree the unprofessional security person from Costco was a major contributor to this tragedy. But besides being a former LEO, I teach Neighborhood Watch citizen patrollers how to effectively call the cops, and IMHO based on the information provided up to now the 9-1-1 dispatcher played the major role in turning a simple call into certain death. MikeM has raised a few points, but the unprofessional responses of the dispatcher of record speaks to the existence of a major unprepared and untrained problem within the Las Vegas emergency communications center. An event this size should have had at least three dispatchers "working" it. There should have been pertinent radio traffic on at least three radio channels. There should be archived computer traffic to at least ten response vehicles.

For a "coroners inquest" to accept as best evidence the mangled recording cited leads to only two possible conclusions - the coroner is totally inept or the verdict supports an official cover-up. IMO it was the latter.

posted by 49erDweet at October 5, 2010 04:34 PM

---

I appreciate the educated analysis here on this blog. But the discussion of the "small" pillars as a shooting backdrop is misleading. There are huge pillars in front of this Costco, as a quick internet search for pics will reveal:

http://photos.lasvegassun.com/media/img/photos/2010/07/10/0710_web_costcoshot001_t653.jpg?214bc4f9d9bd7c08c7d0f6599bb3328710e01e7b

posted by Jeff at October 5, 2010 04:56 PM

---

Actually, that photo confirms MikeM's stated alternative -- those pillars, being irregular stone, are nothing resembling a backstop -- they are ricochet factories with no way to possibly predict the direction of the ricochet.

posted by Phelps at October 5, 2010 06:55 PM

---

Montie, since you claim to be a cop (and I'll take your word for that), I'll ask you for a simple yes or no answer. Given the following known facts:

1) The subject was not identified by the officers as he walked past them. He had to be pointed out to them by a Costco employee.
2) The subject was unaware of the police presence until he heard the first command.
3) The subject had to hear the commanda, turn to face the officer, recognize that he was the object of the commands and then respond to the commands.
4) The elapsed time from the first voiced command to the first shot fired was less than three seconds.
5) After the shooting, the subject's weapon was found still holstered and uncocked. (It is unclear whether it was still attached to his belt or not.)

Was less than three seconds enough time for the subject to reach for his weapon?

Yes or no?

Was less than three seconds enough time for the subject to draw his weapon, still in its holster?

Yes or no?

Was less than three seconds enough time for the officer to recognize that the subject was reaching for his weapon and fire?

Yes or no?

Was it safe to fire when a crowd of more than 75 people were in the immediate area and completely surrounding the subject in a semi-circle?

Yes or no?

Do you think it's fair that citizens who use deadly force must face a jury of their peers if there is any doubt in the DA's mind about the circumstances of the shooting?

Yes or no?

Do you think it's fair that police officers who use deadly force (at least in Las Vegas) can be cleared by a non-adversarial administrative process and never face a jury of their peers in a criminal trial even when there is reasonable doubt about the circumstances of the shooting?

Yes or no?

I'm just a citizen. I expect the police to protect and serve. In my opinion, this was a bad shoot, and Officer Mosher should be tried for manslaughter. Whether he would be convicted or not depends entirely upon the trial, but he ought to have to account for his actions in a venue where he is not surrounded ONLY by those who support him.

posted by Paul Schmehl at October 5, 2010 09:42 PM

---

--- Actually, that photo confirms MikeM's stated alternative -- those pillars, being irregular stone, are nothing resembling a backstop -- they are ricochet factories with no way to possibly predict the direction of the ricochet.---

Yes, obviously ricochets are almost always a hazard in the real world. But the claim has been made that the columns were at largest, "the size of a man". The fact is that they are very large, more like walls (that might, of course, ricochet). No one is claiming that shooting in that environment was safe, except the Police. But making assumptions on the positions of the officers doing the shooting based on an assumption of a man-width pillar would be invalid.

posted by Jeff at October 5, 2010 11:34 PM

---

MIKE M. and MONTIE. Thank you for your response and insight to my question about Officers keeping their weapons after a shoot. But my intent was why the double standard. If I, as a civilian shoot and kill someone in protection of my family or myself,I would lose the gun until it's decided if any charges are pending. Wouldn't killing someone make me an enemy of their friends,family,and or criminal aquiantances'? Doesn't this leave me volnurable to retaliation? I am just getting tired of so many double standards for LE. I for one, do not believe in "all cops are bad". I believe, when the double standards are called into check, the percieved,"us and them" will go away.

Anyway back to Scott. For the purpose of this post,my point of view is facing the front of the store with the entrance on the left and the exit on the right. With approximately 10 feet seperating the two, and the openings are 10 to 12 feet.

Mosher, was near the exit door wall between the entrance and exit doors, closer to the exit. Scott walked past this Officer twice! Once, to get a second cart because the first one was full, including the opened(destroyed)water bottle boxes and the cooler Shai the security guard said Scott was "bag stuffing".(shown in photo evidence)at the inquest.The same ones that Scott told the manager he intended to buy, after checking the fit in the cooler.The pillar in question had 14 or more people sitting on the built in bench seat that runs the entire way around the column, waiting to go back to shopping. Stark stated,"I was on the far side of the entrance door when he heard the yelling and raised his weapon up in Scott's direction while taking a few steps toward the parking lot and Scott, to form a tactical L with Mendiola on my left. Then immediatly heard the shot. People were hitting the ground all around me it, was a sea of body's lying there.I did not know who was shooting and assumed Scott had fired the shot,aimed center body mass then fired one round from 12 to 20 feet and re-evaluated and stopped firing,"he also stated he didn't see a gun until it was on the ground after the shooting. I believe Stark's Round to be the arm pit shot. Which, if this is the case, he was showing Mosher the weapon by reaching to his right side to lift his shirt up before removing the holstered weapon, like he was ordered to do. Several witnesses confirmed this motion. In fact, the witness directly on Mosher's left shoulder said,"He could see the holstered gun was coming up in a handing gesture with Scott holding the gun by top of it",(motioning to the frame near the hammer area)it never pointed at the officer"," I'll never forget it because I got tunnel vision on his hand with the gun". Mendiola stated," I was standing in a position of concealment against the wall by the entrance door, on the exit side. I heard the commands, but only understood the last get down as I was wheeling around and heard the shot,but didn't know who was shooting. As I was raising my weapon I saw a gun in Scott's hand,and fired my weapon 4 to 5 times".Both of these Officers had 30 to 40 people directly in the line of fire so I do not see how they could have seen anything especially if Scott was twisting to his right,away from their point of view. Mosher also testified,"I fired 2 rounds and Scott staggerd back and fell backward twisting to his right while the gun dropped from his hand. Also, another Officer was approaching from the entrance side with a shotgun on the parking lot side of the column between the the two doors,with it's seat filled to capacity. He said,"I had to wade shoulder to shoulder thru the people". Just 8 feet to the left and slightly to rear of Scott,he also said" I never heard any of the commands over the noise of crowd and never saw the suspect". In the video they did have of the parking lot camera, there were at least a dozen people directly behind Scott walking to their cars. Mosher stated there was no one in his backdrop. But the video shows absolutely different. His thigh shot which went thru was never recovered. The detective on the stand said,the shot to the thigh had occured as Mosher's weapon was tracking up toward the suspect(his testimony). Was this possibly an accidental discharge that went completely out of control??? This was a bad shoot on so many levels. Mosher should be charged with endagering the public, without hesitation. It is complete miracle bystanders were not shot. I do not believe for one instant that Scott was drawing on the Officer,and only wanted to hand the gun to the Officer to stop this crazy incedent, and it cost him his life. Yes, he had large amounts of morphine type drugs in his system. He had a broken back from a paratrooper accident,that was aggravated in a car accident a few weeks before. He had been on these medications for years,and more than likely had strong tolerance for them. The ME stated they were lethal levels, but also said 50 milligrams can be letthal to the some of the population. Other doctors also testified that there is no guide to how much is lethal or normal,they go by what it takes to manage the pain. My mom has rheumatoid arthritis, and fibromyalgia. She takes 4 muscle relaxers, 2 tramadol, and 2 10mg hyrocodone 4 times a day,and functions completely normal, and still has pain. But that is neither here nor there. His under the influence behavior,$40 package destruction and bag stuffing(shoplifting) were ALLEGED, there was no tresspassing because they never asked him to leave(stated in testimony). No one ever saw him touch the weapon other than pull his pants up. I truly think Shai Lierly approched Scott about the gun after the manager mentioned something to him about the firearm, and a frustrated Scott told him I'm allowed to carry and he should read the F#*@ing constitution(stated in testimony). Shai being butt hurt made the," I'll show you who's boss", 9-1-1 call, and embelished the facts to the dispatcher to get them to come faster. Little did he know a man was going to be killed because of his damaged ego. The only jurors who were asking the difficult questions were the one's RANDOMLY dismissed from the deliberations. The jury instructions were a joke. In a nutshell they said,if you think Mosher and his Officers went to costco to committ murder then it's criminal, otherwise it is justified. A large number of the city's popultion is very upset with the inquest and LVMPD. All Metro can seem to say is," what's wrong with you people, these men are hero's who killed a crazed,drug addicted man who was actually committing felony's"(only discovered after he was dead, carrying while on pain meds).Still not anything close to CAPITOL crime.

posted by Jvh at October 6, 2010 05:33 AM

---

Was less than three seconds enough time for the officer to recognize that the subject was reaching for his weapon and fire?

Given that it must take some 3 seconds for the LEO to unholster his weapon, raise it, find his target, and fire, one wonders just how said LEO divined that the victim was about to do the same thing.

In other words, in a battle of draw times with a drug-fueled menace to all Las Vegas society, how was it that the LEO got all these shots into the guy while he never cleared one?

The answer lies in this:

he was showing Mosher the weapon by reaching to his right side to lift his shirt up before removing the holstered weapon, like he was ordered to do. Several witnesses confirmed this motion. In fact, the witness directly on Mosher's left shoulder said,"He could see the holstered gun was coming up in a handing gesture with Scott holding the gun by top of it",(motioning to the frame near the hammer area)it never pointed at the officer"," I'll never forget it because I got tunnel vision on his hand with the gun".

In other words, we're not getting the entire story here. We never do.

posted by Ten at October 6, 2010 09:02 AM

---

Maybe cops shouldn't have guns - they can't keep 'em in their pants.

Las Vegas citizens - move now. The lawsuit settlement will raise your property taxes, and the publicity will dry up your revenues.

I sure don't want to be near jerks with guns, and I sure don't want them wearing badges.

posted by Bill Johnson at October 6, 2010 11:07 AM

---

Ten
All Officers on the scene had weapons drawn at low ready, before they approached the costco doors.Each officer testified to this.

posted by Jvh at October 6, 2010 03:15 PM

---

Sorry everyone I originally posted as JohnH on earlier Scott updates. Just wanted to clarify. Thanks again to Mike M for a place to intelligently debate the shooting. It's amazing how many blind haters are writing on this subject on both sides.

posted by Jvh at October 6, 2010 06:16 PM

---

Thank you Mike and Montie and everyone else for your analyses. Sorry for the anti-police comments that some have. It's very understandable why some have resentment, but let's not condemn the innocent with the guilty. If God blesses us, and we are able to save the Republic, we are going to need everyone's help. We are in desperate need of God-fearing and honest judges, lawyers, and law enforcement officers. Here in Tennessee, the law enforcement officers have been great allies in fighting gun control and improving the handgun carry permit system. Hundreds have spoken out in public in favor of 2nd Amendment rights for Tennesseans. Yes, bad officers need to be addressed, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Let's support the good officers like Mike and Montie. To quote Ben Franklin, "We must hang together or we will all hang separately." May God bless all of you for your concern over this terrible tragedy.

posted by ConcernedCitizen at October 7, 2010 12:05 AM

---

ConcernedCitizen,

Thank you.

Over the course of my career in law enforcement, I have been called every vile name in the book (and some not even in the book!), as well as having my life and the lives of my family members threatened. It has never meant one thing to me since I always just considered the source and let it roll off my back. However, when I hear these types of things from the CCW/Open Carry community, whom I have always considered to be "my people", it hurts a little bit.

I've been an NRA life member since I was 16 years old. I went to Washington D.C. in 1987 with over a hundred like-minded cops from all over the nation to testify AGAINST the first attempt at an "assault weapons ban", and from that event was a founding life member of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (now part of the NRA), which was formed as a coalition of cops and citizens to protect individual gun rights. I worked to put pressure on the Oklahoma State Legislature to get a "Shall Issue" concealed carry law passed (even though I could carry concealed as a cop), because I thought it was right, and more recently worked on getting the legislature to pass an open carry law (which unfortunately was vetoed by our worthless Democrat governor).

I have never felt that there was a culture of "us vs. them" regarding cops and citizens with concealed carry permits. I more thought of it as "cops and the good guys vs. the bad guys". Until now. Some of the comments here have really given me pause. I hope it's just a case of raw emotion over the thought of a good man losing his life in a situation which should not have happened and not a sign of a deeper rift.

I do however, agree with your sentiments regarding this wonderful republic our forefathers blessed us with and the danger we all face in losing it all if those who seek to fundamentally change it have their way. If that should happen, then I will be right there with you in fearing and reviling the police, because their role will fundamentally change in this country and I will no longer be able to do the job in good conscience.

posted by Montie at October 7, 2010 01:15 AM

---

Paul Schmehl,

I'll try to answer in the order you asked and as yes or no with no explanation of that yes or no, as you requested (gee, just like court).

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

Paul, there are a lot of caveats that go with those yes and no answers if you are interested.

posted by Montie at October 7, 2010 01:32 AM

---

JVH,

I sympathize with your reasoning about being disarmed and vulnerable were you to shoot somebody in self defense. It is precisely that vulnerability (real or imagined) that has prompted changes in many department's procedures after an officer involved shooting. It is not really a double standard and here's why. If an officer shoots somebody and the department is up to speed on policies, his/her gun WILL be taken for evidence, just as yours would, but a supervisor will hand over his/her own gun to the officer at that time (unless it's some OBVIOUS AT THE MOMENT depraved illegal shooting) to avoid that psychological trauma.

The police are not going to re-arm you because you are not issued a department gun. They have no gun to give you. Since I do not carry my department gun off-duty, were I to have an off-duty shooting with my own gun, my gun would not be replaced at that time either (a department SIG wouldn't fit my 1911 holster anyway). But, you bet your ass when I got home I would re-arm, as you would be entitled to do also.

posted by Montie at October 7, 2010 01:50 AM

---

Montie,

Thanks for your response. I agree with you about attacks you sustained here, were un-warranted. You have said nothing inflamitory or bias. I think you are a intelligent,level headed LEO,and a credit to your force. I know there are men and women like you and Mike M. on our police force here in Vegas, but sadly precious few. 99% of friends and people I have talked with, on the subject of Metro have come away with a bad taste in there mouth. None of them felons or have criminal history. I know LEO's aren't responsible for the laws they enforce, but their attitude is. Metro comes of as cocky,overbearing,and suspicious even at a simple traffic stop. Is it normal where you work, to handcuff, and search an individual for the officers safety after asking to search your car, during a traffic infraction? I know of at least three incedents like this. By "us and them",and a double standard. I mean Leo's are always given the benifit of the doubt. I as a citizen, if accused of somthing, have to go to court, hire an attorney, post bail even for a citation, and the prepoderence of evidence is up to me. Where as LEO's accused of something are immediatly issued an attorney, post no bail, don't have to go to court until after lenghty legal rangling, and the prepondernce of evidence is still up to the accuser. Not to mention the PPA's announcing the whole time how un-warranted the accusations are. Fair is fair, if Law enforcement just stood up and said,"We made a mistake or this Officer is under investigation because it warrants a further look". Not just in this case but everytime. Instead, Law Enforcement gives the image of trying to sweep incedents under the rug. There has been comments made about how police are being "militerized", not so, military rules of engagement in combat require being fired upon first,unless involved in an offensive attack. This is in no way a condemnation of LEO's,it is the way they have presented themselves after the fact. I know I am not the only one who feels this way. It is not a comfortable feeling when you don't feel safe around your own police that we foot the bill for.

posted by Jvh at October 7, 2010 11:04 AM

---

Costco has a long history of anti gun / anti carry policies. I pin this on them more than the officers involved. It does look as if the officers / dispatcher lack basic competence I would expect in even the lowest level line employee (let alone armed police) but I place the larger blame on Costco.

Someone help me out � I'm still missing something. What crime did Erik Scott commit to warrant any of this? He refused to leave the store - but was shot outside? He stole something - but had no stolen items? Perhaps he damaged some merchandise (I'm not clear on this)? He was acting odd and a bit hyper � heaven forbid? Did he threaten anyone? Did he brandish the weapon or act in a menacing manner? I can't find the initial crime. I suspect it will be argued that he was asked to leave (trespass) but I find that hard to believe, as he was, in fact, leaving the store without incident at the time he was shot. The 9-1-1 transcript indicates that he was told he could not have a gun in the store (but there is no evidence he was asked to leave). What in the world made it necessary to escalate this to a guns drawn officer encounter?

I carry every time my wife forces me to go to Costco � knowing full well I might be asked to leave at any time. They are rabid anti gun / anti second amendment loons. Whenever possible I try to shop at Sam�s Club or some other big box store instead. This shooting came about because of many poor decisions � but it was Costco�s institutional policy against guns (lawful or otherwise) that set it in motion.

My advice - Don�t give them your money.

posted by argenbright at October 7, 2010 01:32 PM

---

Montie,if you're the same fellow who comments at Tam's place regularly, I've got a question for you.
Given that:

OKlahoma is #1 for reported police misconduct, per capita, nation wide.

and:

Tulsa is #1 in OKlahoma for reported police misconduct, per capita.

and:

The Montie I know works for TPD....

why should anyone trust you?

This is not a personal stab, it's a serious question. You claim to be a LEO, and that we should trust you, because you are a LEO. Only problem is, you work for the most broken PD outside of N'awlins in the entire USA.

not exactly the sort of thing to inspire confidence...

posted by Ogre at October 8, 2010 01:49 AM

---

Yes Ogre, it is the same Montie.

TPD IS broken, and is in the process of cleaning house. Tulsa is in the midst of a scandal that involves not only local, but Federal (ATF naturally, and Secret Service) officers who have been accused of lying on affidavits for search warrants, fabricating confidential informants, stealing money from drug dealers (and possibly stealing drugs too). It may spread even farther than the dozen or so who are now caught up.

This is a black eye for the department. Some of the officers involved, I have known for years. One retired sergeant who always impressed me as a very straight-laced, by-the-book type of guy is in up to his neck and I think has plead guilty.

One of the involved officers, also recently retired, was always a cut-up and funny to be around, he too has plead guilty and was actually filmed by the FBI in a sting operation TAKING MONEY.

Originally this started with some SID guys. Officers that kind of had a rep of: "stay away from that guy, there's something about his cases"...Yet it has caught up guys I thought were on the up and up.

I used to be the liason for a smaller suburban department to the Tulsa Secret Service Office, and am still close to the office manager and RAC there. I was stunned when I learned that one of their agents was resigning and going to plead out and a candidate for hire by the Secret Service (coming from TPD) was withdrawing and turning State's evidence.

I never saw any of the stuff that has caught up those officers. Then again, if you have a reputation that you will not tolerate police misconduct, they won't take a chance of doing anything like that in front of you. I'm not claiming "Serpico" status, but I HAVE worked internal affairs, and developed cases that have gotten officers fired. Some officers think I should be ashamed of that, but I am not.

I for one am glad to see this happen. I have NO TOLERANCE for officers who fudge the truth, are badge heavy, have a problem with excessive force complaints or who feel that the end justifies the means. I think that once this process comes to its final conclusion, that TPD will be a much better department for it.

I once worked for a suburban department (the one I mentioned above) that had a bad reputation before I got there. After firing the chief and the top brass, the city hired a chief from outside the department (he came from Wichita, KS) and he was heavily recruiting officers who had good reputations in the metro area because of problems that permeated the department. After a lot of coaxing to go there, what I found was a department where half of the officers were what I like to call "criminals with badges".
We had to work nearly as hard within the department as without.

This can happen anywhere. When I was in college, the LAPD had the reputaton as the premier law enforcement agency in the country. Highly rated for integrity, efficiency, and state of the art police procedure. After the Rampart Division scandal broke it affected the nation's opinion of the whole department.

One of the things I have never understood about TPD is that they do not do pre-employment polygraphs. Every other department in the metro area (including ones I have worked at) does so. Now, a polygraph is not a fail-safe, but I have seen them weed out potential problems who made it through extensive background checks, and psych evals.

I cannot speak to your claim of Oklahoma's ranking in reported police misconduct. I have never researched it, but it is possible. It is also possible that the statewide ranking is driven mostly by TPD. I hope not. I think it is important to maintain integrity in an organization that is accorded BY THE PEOPLE, with the power to take away freedom and even life from the individuals we come in contact with.

Remember the line from "Spiderman": "With great power comes great responsibility". I try to instill that in the officers that I supervise. Some officers complain about being held to a "higher standard" when we are people just like those we police. But, if you try to live up to that higher standard then you have no worries like those guys who now have to go to jail with the very people they helped put there. You can testify in court and never worry about your testimony being impeached. You can make an arrest in which you are put in the position of using force to effect, without fear of it coming back on you because your rep is that you never use more than necessary. You can be involved in a shooting knowing that you had no choice and that the department and the public will see it that way too.

TPD had (and probably still has) some bad cops, but has a lot of really good cops too. I'm sure that LVMPD has its share of both, and maybe the cops in Erik's shooting were the former. Or maybe just one of them was too quick on the trigger and the others fired out of a "contagious fire" impulse.

I don't necessarily claim that you should trust me. The internet is rife with trolls and posuers, and unless you have met someone face to face, you never really know WHO you are communicating with.
This has actually been an emotionally trying story to comment on. I feel for Erik and his family, in the senseless death of a, from all I have learned, good man. Yet, I also understand how things can go down in a situation like this from the officers' perspectives and how they may have been put in a position of feeling they had to shoot when they did.

As I stated in a previous comment, I got interested in it because one of my officers who knows me to be a big proponent of civilian CCW and even open carry (as he himself is), first brought the case to my attention, and I read a little here and there about it. I originally linked to MikeM's post from VFTP and got more interested. Interested enough to want to find out all I could about it. I began commenting, like most people do, because I had a point of view I wanted to interject into the discussion.

You and all the other readers here are free to agree, disagree or reject entirely what I have had to say, just as I am with all the other commenters. Although, I do feel a certain "regular VFTP reader and commenter" kinship with YOU, Ogre ;-)

posted by Montie at October 8, 2010 11:44 PM

---

Montie,

Want to relocate? LVMPD could sure use a shot in the arm of what you got in your heart. Thanks again for your LEO point of view. I would like to hear more from you later as things develop in the months to come.

posted by Jvh at October 9, 2010 01:25 AM

---

Jvh,

Oddly enough, I was in Las Vegas in late '96 (I say late, because they had already switched from khaki short sleeve to brown long sleeve shirts, so maybe Oct. or Nov.). I had occasion to talk with a couple of LVMPD officers who were working a part-time job. I don't remember where, but maybe one of the casinos. I didn't care so much for the city proper as I did the high desert environment the city is located in.

At any rate I talked seriously with them about applying to LVMPD and relocating there if I was able to get hired. They told me that the department was actively recruiting at that time and gave me the name of someone to contact, but some things changed in my personal life, and I decided not to pursue it, but to stay in OK.

posted by Montie at October 9, 2010 05:16 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

We certainly can't return to the hellish Bush policies, which saw gays and lesbians rounded up and... uh... well, I mean the ones which criminalized abortion and established a theocracy... ummm...

Here's the point: after eight years of unending chicken little posturing and wailing about the Dark Night of RethugliKKKan Fascism, nobody's buying that crap any more. Not even the hard core lefties believe in it, if they ever did. They've shot their bolt, and like the hollow charge of racism, their hysterical shrieks sound like... hysterical shrieks. Earsplittingly loud, incredibly annoying, but empty froth, notto mention outlandishly stupid. Their slanders comparing the Republicans to the Taliban and Bush to Hitler have gotten old, and nobody's buying that brand of snake oil any more.

posted by Steve Skubinna at October 2, 2010 11:29 AM

---

Does anyone have estimates of crowd size? Did anyone see SSEIU thugs patrolling to keep skeptics out? From what I've seen so far, the turnout was disappointing.

posted by mescalero at October 2, 2010 07:45 PM

---

I estimate 50 people....

not counting harry belafonte

posted by rumcrook at October 2, 2010 08:06 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Somehow, vaguely, I'm reminded of yellow armbands and gas chambers. No, wait, it's more like gulags and Siberian tundra. No, I've got it: it's the Taliban with their weird 7th century view of the world and the way to enforce conformity to that view.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

But, no pressure, none whatsoever.

posted by Charles at October 2, 2010 10:31 AM

---

It's people like those who produced this crap that make me glad to be a gun owner.
Now I think I'll go light a fire in the wood stove and pump a couple of tons of carbon into the atmosphere just for feckn kicks.

posted by firefirefire at October 2, 2010 11:47 AM

---

This makes one think that the ecokristallnacht is just around the corner. So far, no indication of shock and disgust from the political likes of James Hansen, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Steven Chu. For that matter, we haven't heard of any reactions from any politicians from either side of the global warming controversy.

The blogs are all over this piece of eco-liberal elitist nonsense, and the politicians would be wise to make sure that no government funding is used to support such trash in the future.

posted by Mescalero at October 2, 2010 07:51 PM

---

At least the greens are being up front about what they fantasize about, and what they plan to implement. And yes, they do actually want to murder.

Their message: "Conform to my religion, or I'll kill ya."

It's a good thing that threats only work on cowards.

posted by brando at October 4, 2010 09:59 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Bet you change your tune when he turns up on Fox News. Or is Fox short on Latinos by design?

posted by Dave in Northridge at October 4, 2010 09:30 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

If there was ever any doubt in your mind that Washington D.C. is overflowing with those guys, it should be dispelled now. The Federal Highway Administration has published an updated Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and has decided that innumerable lives will be saved through improved readability if every traffic sign in America has capital letters on only the first letter of each word in every sign. Presumably this means that all �STOP� signs will, hereafter, read �Stop.�

According to New York City Officials, replacing all of their traffic signs, at about $110 per sign, will cost some $27.6 million dollars. NYC bureaucracy and union work rules being what they are, it will probably cost $276 million. One shudders to think of the national costs, but as Senator Everett Dirksen said, �A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you�re talking about real money.� Of course to the Obamites, trillion is the new billion. Imagine the horror if they ever find out what comes after trillion.

This new regulation has been brought to you only indirectly by Congress which can�t be bothered to read the bills they write and vote for, or to pay attention to the enormously destructive powers they give unelected federal bureaucrats. This is the brave new hopenchange world of leftist bureaucrats unleashed to regulate every aspect of our lives, for our own good of course, because we�re so stupid that without lower case traffic signs, we�ll drive headlong into fixed objects.

As so much of the offal that issues from the Federal lower regions, this is clearly an example of a complete lack of common sense and real world experience. Only the Federal Government could decide that signs are easier to read at any distance with smaller, lower case letters, and that lives will thereby be saved. Credit is due, however, because they are, at least, being consistent. They also believe that we can get out of debt by--wait for it--going more deeply into debt! The next thing you know, they�ll be trying to convince the public that you can insure millions of people who don�t have insurance and it will cost less, or that under Obamacare, you can keep your insurance and doctor!

� Hide "Signs, Signs, Everywhere Signs!"

---

or that keeping the Bush tax cuts will cost them $700,000,000

posted by Rich at October 1, 2010 06:21 PM

---

Not many people know that there is a regulation which forbids Federal Civil Service employees from staring out the window before lunch. This is so they will have something to do in the afternoon.

posted by Tregonsee at October 1, 2010 06:27 PM

---

Hello! dbbabdg interesting dbbabdg site!

posted by Pharmc851 at October 5, 2010 10:15 AM

---

Very nice site! cheap viagra

posted by Pharme419 at October 5, 2010 10:15 AM

---

Very nice site! [url=http://aieypxo.com/toxtts/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]

posted by Pharma675 at October 5, 2010 10:15 AM

---

Very nice site! cheap cialis http://aieypxo.com/toxtts/4.html

posted by Pharma96 at October 5, 2010 10:16 AM

---

Very nice site!

posted by Pharmb593 at October 5, 2010 10:16 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Yeah, the slave-master and his minions want to free the slaves from the eeeeeviiils of capitalism so they can enjoy the chains of his beloved communism.

posted by emdfl at October 1, 2010 10:16 AM

---

No, Mr. President, it took a WAR and the formation of the Republican Party to free the slaves. If you and your ilk had their way, YOU would still be a slave!

posted by StanInTexas at October 1, 2010 10:29 AM

---

If you and your ilk had their way, YOU would still be a slave!

No. He would never have been born. Obama is not the child of slave ancestors. Without the civil war, there would have been no "guess who's coming to dinner" moment in Obama's mother's life. She wouldn't have been getting knocked up by an African student just to show how unbiased she was.

Of course, there were some slaves who did not wait for a government beneficator to give them their freedom. They took it upon themselves. Some by earning it and some by taking it.

posted by Professor Hale at October 1, 2010 12:53 PM

---

I think that it could be argued that the slaves are still not free. Their are some people that seem to not understand the concept. Witness the crowds at the Superdome following Katrina. They were lost without someone the take care of them. You did not see this in Mississippi or for that matter following the almost equally distructive storm that occurred west of NO a few weeks after Katrina. In fact, many involved in that storm rejected Federal and government aid.

posted by david7134 at October 1, 2010 06:03 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:25 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

I understand the impetus to bring up anything that may help the economy but these "New" TP candidates must learn to NOT get off the road of failed Demorat policies. Angle did it in Nevada and Paul did it in Ky. The red meat of failed obama policies is so tasty that to bring up anything else is to open the door to distortions. Look at what is going on with Whitman in Ca. She did what she was required to do and hired a maid through an agency that was supposed to vet her. It was never Whitman's job but now she is having to spend time talking about it. We don't need new ideas right now. Just promise to repeal Ocare and cut spending. The public does not want any social or ideological issues at this moment.

posted by inspectorudy at October 1, 2010 12:34 AM

---

Boxin' Bob is my outgoing Congresscritter, and Renee Ellmers is my incoming one.

posted by Larry at October 1, 2010 06:31 AM

---

That is the exact same amount (23% tax increase) that Blanche Lincoln is using in her adds against John Boozman here in Arkansas. Hmmmm...I guess its in the "Playbook for Desperate Incumbents."

posted by Razorgirl at October 1, 2010 02:27 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

EHRs are one of those things that is great as a concept, but often horrible in real world use. The devil is in the details, and it requires a total commitment from the practitioner otherwise it is all but guaranteed to fail.

No system is off-the-shelf perfect, and no existing practice can perfectly interface with one either. So implementation requires adaptation of the software and adaptation of the practice to the new systems(that's the element many are loathe to swallow.) As the Medical Blog noted, this is something that will require a very free market for innovation and later standardization.

In the broadest sense EHR is much like facsimile machines, or other labor saving technologies - they are only of real practical and financial benefit once most everyone is using them. Getting the majority of potential users over the hump is essential, but needs to be done in a palatable manner.

By attempting to force widespread adoption in this manner the implementations are practically doomed to fail. The greatest downside will be the creation of a large class of practitioners who are thus embittered to the entire concept. It is possible that this core of negativity will have the net of effect of delaying widespread acceptance and use longer than might have happened otherwise.

posted by ThomasD at September 30, 2010 09:51 PM

---

EHRs are a massive invasion in the personal space by government agents.
Everyone's medical history (all of it, every prescription, procedure, visit to your doctors) will be available to government agencies across the board, crosslinked to medical and tax records, employment records, etc. etc.

Still think it's a good idea? Now try having all that information available to a government flunky who has to decide if you're to be allowed treatment for say cancer.
You're 50, have a decent job which pays the government $30.000 a year in taxes, but the treatment will cost $200.000.
The flunky has a guideline to only allow treatment if the cost is recovered by incoming taxes from the patient in under 5 years. You're denied treatment, offered assisted suicide instead.

posted by JTW at October 1, 2010 03:20 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

...don't know why we just don't tar and feather the whole lot of them, and be done with it. I always thought tar and feathering was a fine, old, American tradition. Given the seriousness of the situation, no sir, I do not jest.

Pissed in Idaho

posted by Michael Noble at September 30, 2010 04:22 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

It might be interesting to see who owns the copyright & trademark on that ClearView font. Want to bet it's some Obama crony.

posted by Jerry in Detroit at September 30, 2010 05:26 PM

---

Meh. This is not the hill I want to die on. This rule went into effect in 2003 (pre-Obama), municipalities have until 2018 to replace all signs. Typical service life of a street sign is approximately 10 years, so basically all the regulation really affects is that replacement signs are upper & lower case instead of all caps.
As far as the font goes, studies have demonstrated that sans serif fonts (such as Arial) are more legible that a serif font (such as Times New Roman.) There's a reason eye charts don't use serifs!
I haven't seen the regulation, but from what I do know about Federal regulations, proprietary specifications are discouraged and require a special exemption. More likely the regulation specifies a "sans serif font, such as Clearview, Helvetica or Arial."

posted by SicSemperTyrannus at October 1, 2010 10:08 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Here's a thought exercise for the curious. According to the 911 tape, the sequence of events was as follows: 14:16 Mosher issues his first command. Erik is walking past him with his back to Mosher. 14:18 Mosher fires two shots. The commands Mosher issued (heard on the 911 tape, not based on witness testimony which wildly varied) were as follows: "Put your hands where I see them! Drop it! Get on the ground! Get on the ground!"

Now get three people together; one to be Erik, one to be Mosher and one to be a timer. Have Erik walk past Mosher from behind him. Have the timer hit the stopwatch as Mosher issues his first command. Have Mosher issue the exact same commands. Have Erik turn toward Mosher immediately. Have the timer loudly yell "STOP!" when two seconds is reached. Then ask yourself, what chance of survival did Erik have?

posted by Paul Schmehl at September 29, 2010 10:10 PM

---

Manslaughter, my ass. He was murdered. The criminals who murdered him deserve to die.

posted by ccoffer at September 30, 2010 12:23 PM

---

I hope the family is quick enough to get a court order making sure that the city doesn't destroy any of the records. I also hope that they get a chance to sue each of the officers severally. Their actions would seem to me to be so agregious that they can be separated out, or that the city might just drop them.

posted by Timothyjp at September 30, 2010 03:10 PM

---

There will not be records available for review? They have ways of disappearing. The family needs to file a Federal law suit for violation of Erik's civil rights! NOW!!!!!

Clark county officials will most likely bill the family for the ammo that was expended to kill Erik.

posted by 1Fearless1 at September 30, 2010 09:00 PM

---

Check out the pictures of Mosher. Something around 300 lbs, more chins than the Peking phonebook, the big but now flabby arms of a guy who used to lift a lot, and stopped.

First, I guess Metro has no physical fitness standards. If you can lift the donut, you're good.

Second, why was he involved in two shootings? Maybe he has bad luck. Maybe he has bad judgment. But just maybe he has a bad temper. And if he does, it may not be all natural.

You see, he sure looks like a lot of juicers -- anabolic steroid users -- that I've seen. On the other hand, I can't tell from the pictures, but his face doesn't seem to have had the acne ravaging that juicers often experience.

But Mr Scott should seek Mosher's medical records in discovery. No, the 'roids won't be in there -- gym rats don't get prescriptions for that stuff. But at his age, if he's had ED prescriptions, well, that's another side-effect of the Get Big To Be Baaad program that an unfortunately large minority of cops are on. I'd wager that the police did not drug-test any of the cops involved in this shooting. If they thought their guys were clean, they would have done that as part of their PR offensive... that they didn't do it means that they know that have a "metabolites issue" shall we say.

Then again, maybe he's just a donut-fueled prediabetic bag of suet who hasn't got the judgment to be be toting a badge. Occam's razor and all.

posted by Dr. Weightroom at September 30, 2010 11:57 PM

---

Dr. W, not only was he involved in another shooting, the previous incident was also a fatal shooting.

Food for thought.

posted by Casey at October 1, 2010 12:36 AM

---

Firing too quickly is just as likely to be from fear as from a bad temper. Also a lack of confidence in their own judgement to assess the situation accurately. The bad-tempered, bad-a$$ folks I've known tend to like the beatdowns as they're taking suspects into custody more than shooting.

posted by styrgwillidar at October 1, 2010 11:29 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Hard to believe it takes a state of the art technology attack to knock a country firmly entrenched in the stone age.

posted by TexasRainmaker at September 29, 2010 10:42 AM

---

Impressive work.

posted by Chris Short at September 29, 2010 10:46 AM

---

Hmm? Who would have figured? Chilling analysis.
Thier reactor is loaded and ready for ops but if they try and start it it will just go China syndrom. Guess it will be a while before they get it up and running. Good thing.

posted by ron at September 29, 2010 10:59 AM

---

So... you're saying this is sort of like the "Exciter" missions the Air Force flew (flys?) where the purpose was to make the potential enemy forces light up their air defenses.... so that the Rivet Joint circling off the coast could record everything?

Interesting theory.

posted by Foamer at September 29, 2010 12:28 PM

---

Actually, a lot of people believe that the first known attack was on the Iraqi air defenses in 1991, that apparently worm was hard wired into HP printer residing on the PCs that interfaced with the air defense network.

posted by Phelps at September 29, 2010 06:43 PM

---

I wouldn't believe anything posted at DEBKA. That site has a very low reliability rating.

Even if the linked article is correct, this whole matter of the Stuxnet worm is making less and less sense as it goes along. The way to remove a virus, any virus, is simple:

1) isolate the infected machine

2) boot from a clean system CD

3) run a remover/protector program like Malwarebytes.

I have trouble believing that the Iranians have been so lax about cybersecurity that they can't do this. Or that the Stuxnet worm is so smart there's no way to remove it. Or that they can't restore from clean system backups or system images. I think there's a lot more going on here than anyone has yet said.

posted by wolfwalker at September 29, 2010 07:37 PM

---

Wolfwalker,

It's a bit more complex than that when you're dealing with a massive - and massively infected network, especially if you're not sure when the infection occurred.

What if the infection occurred prior to the oldest backup in the sequence? No one keeps backups for more than a month or three - or even if they did, that's a MASSIVE loss of time and effort; all the work of MONTHS is G O N E.

The amount of time and effort involved to wipe and restore each individual machine is also going to be huge. Especially if you're going to try to save some or all of the data on each machine - and ensure that your backups don't become infected.

If they haven't been able to block the worm from infecting computers on the 'Net (or even if there's a risk - say it's polymorphic), you have to keep it off the 'Net until ALL the 'net is clean - or rebuild your network one machine at a time, again a massive effort and loss of time.

Either way, it looks like they're pretty well screwed. Especially if say, part of the worm's payload was simply to push various industrial components (e.g. valves, pipes, other control systems) past tolerance, requiring inspection or replacement. That's an awful lot of piping and other components buried in an awful lot of concrete.

And an awful lot of infected components outside of just the computers that are carriers of the virus. Assuming there's only one.

I have a feeling this thing shouldn't have been named Stuxnet but Ebolanet.

Orion

posted by Orion at September 29, 2010 09:35 PM

---

I wonder if this virus speaks Hebrew.

posted by Stan at September 29, 2010 10:52 PM

---

And what if the stuxnet virus was aided by a sleeper IT agent, or three, buried deep within Iranian network services? Iran is a Persian country; the Mullahs are not universally loved.

The thought of someone letting all the minks "go free" in and among several key networks, makes me shudder(with delight, since I love the target!)

posted by Earl T at September 29, 2010 11:12 PM

---

Well,

"I have trouble believing that the Iranians have been so lax about cybersecurity that they can't do this. Or that the Stuxnet worm is so smart there's no way to remove it. Or that they can't restore from clean system backups or system images. I think there's a lot more going on here than anyone has yet said. "

All I can say is when Saudi Bdes visit, we upload nothing, attach no stick, and receive no CDs. Their machines are infected with any and all malware known to mankind.

Just remember, to a 3rd world country, this is still 'magic'.

posted by Mike at September 30, 2010 12:49 AM

---

And remember this thing apparently has infected not just PCs but through those has taken root in the PLSs that control things like centrifuges in Iran's enrichment plants.
Can't simply reboot those thing.

It wouldn't in fact surprise me at all if those were the origin of the attack, and were delivered from the factory with the trojan already installed in both themselves and their control software, in which care reinstalling from the original installation package would have no effect whatsoever.

Another theory I've been playing with is that this is an Iranian worm aimed at the USA or other western countries that somehow got out of control during testing (or was deliberately launched into their own systems in order to be able to blame Israel or the US, because everyone knows Iran is too backwards to make something like that, right?).

posted by JTW at September 30, 2010 04:34 AM

---

PLC's use Windows? Last I heard, even the Stuxnet worm/virus was a Windows program that couldn't run on anything else.

[brief interlude to look at Wikipedia's article on Stuxnet]

[blink] Wow. Okay, if the wikipedia article is right, this thing is a damnsight smarter than I thought. Infecting Windows machines and then rewriting EEPROM in attached PLCs? That would require proprietary system information, the kind that only the company should have.

This passage also leaped out at me:
'Once inside the system it uses the default passwords to command the software.[3] Siemens however advises against changing the default passwords because it "could impact plant operations".'

As security holes go, that one's big enough to drive a starship through. Something really stinks now -- that bit makes it look more and more like a coordinated plan among multiple entities. What self-respecting programmer would write a security system that contains such an obvious hole?

posted by wolfwalker at September 30, 2010 07:40 AM

---

wolfwalker, if you've worked in IT very long, odds are you've known plenty of people who write software with holes like that.

posted by Dr. Horrible at October 2, 2010 03:21 PM

---

Uh, you'd definitely want to think that the people writing software for nuclear power plants would be able to get their act together to code a functioning password system. That bit of "advice" from Siemens is bizarre to say the least. What happens if you change the password? Nuclear meltdown? What idiot designed that?

posted by JS at October 2, 2010 04:56 PM

---

What self-respecting programmer would write a security system that contains such an obvious hole?

One looking to sell it to imbeciles.

posted by Purple Avenger at October 2, 2010 09:18 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

I would suggest they're ignoring her because she's no longer useful.

Considering how they used, abused and dumped her when inconvenient, I would suggest they have no capacity for shame for what they did to that poor woman.

posted by Veeshir at September 28, 2010 02:55 PM

---

She stopped being useful after Election Day 2008. She was the last person to see it coming, and still can't grasp that her erstwhile best pals don't want to talk with her, let alone be seen with her.

posted by Steve Skubinna at October 2, 2010 05:58 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Trumka wants to "re-establish" popular control over private corporations. RE-ESTABLISH, like in the way things use to be? When was that Mr. Trmka? Where is this idiot coming from?

I live in Venezuela and I wish Trumka's so called working class could spend some time down here and see first hand what socialism about and what it does to an economy. Unfortunately they've been conditioned for so long by our ( I hate this word )"progressive" politicians, media and school system, that I fear there is no hope. But giving up hope won't get us where we need to go. We conservatives must find a better way to package and sell our ideas.

I'm a first time visitor to Confederate Yankee but I will definitely be back.

posted by Jim at September 28, 2010 07:55 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

Please keep in mind, gentle readers, that all that we can do in this series, and all that we are trying to do, is to provide informed background and plausible analysis using the facts and testimony generally available to the public. We can, upon occasion, break new facts and details not generally available, and we can make reasonable inferences based on those facts and details, but what we will always do our best to avoid is unreasonable literary bomb throwing. If the facts, and the reasonable inferences drawn from them, indicate that the police (or any other party) are wrong, we�ll make that case and explain why we believe it�s so. But no one should expect blanket pronouncements of malign intent, murder and mayhem unsupported by fact or reason.

Several commenters have been concerned about the police and their tendency toward perjury. Incredibly obvious and predictable disclaimer: Because the police are severely handicapped in hiring by being restricted to the human race, it is always possible that some police officers will behave inappropriately. They should not, but they do. That said, consider that the majority of arrests made by any police officer (did you know that a traffic ticket is an arrest?) are misdemeanors, offenses routinely settled without jail time by small fines. Perjury, on the other hand, is commonly a felony virtually everywhere. My experience teaches me that few officers will risk not only their reputations but their careers and potentially, their freedom, when so little is at stake. The other side of the coin is that when a great deal is at stake, when their reputations, careers and freedom might hang in the balance, perjury might become more likely. Such is the reality of human nature. Police officers are routinely accused of perjury. Have you ever heard anyone say: �Yeah, I got a speeding ticket today and the officer was completely justified in giving it to me?� I thought not. Should perjury be discovered and punished? Of course, but that�s a matter for each law enforcement agency and each community. If a given agency is rotten, community elected officials have the power to clean it out. If the elected officials refuse, citizens have the power to periodically clean them out. If the citizens refuse, they�re making a choice by not making a choice.

Information from another commenter suggests that Erik Scott�s handgun was removed from his waistband holster by an EMT and placed on the ground. I�m unsure if that commenter meant to say that an EMT removed the handgun, still in its inside the waistband holster, and placed it on the ground. According to the commenter, this information comes from an EMT�s report of the incident, which apparently has not been made public, nor was it introduced during the Inquest. The photograph displayed during the Inquest depicts a 1911 type handgun in a holster which the police said belonged to Scott and was photographed in place. I�m unaware of specific testimony regarding how it came to rest there, but the implication in line with the Police/Prosecutor theory is that Scott himself removed the weapon from his waistband at his back, holster and all, pointed it at the officers and dropped it at some point during the shooting.

If this is true, another bizarre and inexplicable element has been added to this case, so bizarre and inexplicable that I tend to discount it. If true, this means that after shooting and handcuffing Scott, the officers failed to disarm him, failing to remove even the weapon known to them. In other words, having, seconds earlier, apparently survived a deadly force encounter, the officers, through negligence, did nothing to remove all possibility of deadly, continuing danger to themselves and others. All available facts suggest that any officer handcuffing Scott should not have failed to detect his handgun, imprinted under his shirt, or partially exposed. Failing to remove and secure it would indicate such gross incompetence on the part of the officers that it is hard to believe and would require substantial proof to sustain, proof such as an EMTs report made public accompanied by that EMTs testimony, hopefully supported by the testimony of other EMTs. On the other hand, if it is true, the Police/Prosecution theory falls entirely apart. If EMTs found Scott�s handgun, in its holster still in his waistband after he had been shot and handcuffed, the officer�s claim that Scott pointed that weapon at them is, to put it very, very kindly, mistaken.

Another interesting tidbit is that the police have said that Scott was carrying two weapons, and at least one media outlet has indicated that �a second gun was found on Scott� by EMTs at some point in their contact with him, but I�ve not been able to find any details about just what that second weapon was, its chain of evidence, or how, if at all, if might have figured in this case other than to reflect very poorly on the officers involved whose search of Scott, post shooting, was apparently less than thorough. If he was carrying a second weapon, it�s unusual that it was apparently not prominently mentioned at the Inquest as it could potentially be used to depict Scott even more unfavorably. On the other hand, if the police did miss it, and an EMT did find it, that would tend to make the police look less than competent.

There is, given the information available, another (but not the only) plausible possibility. Confused by rapidly shouted, conflicting commands, Scott tried to disarm himself, reaching behind his back and removing his handgun, still in its holster. Evidence suggests that he may have done this, even telling the officers that he was disarming. Considering this scenario, what remains unknown is when the police began to fire. Did the mere downward movement of his raised hand trigger their fire? Did they wait until his hand disappeared behind his back? Did they, seeing something that might have resembled a gun (in this case, in its holster), appearing from behind Scott�s back even though it was not pointed in their direction, open fire? The Police/Prosecution theory requires that Scott remove the weapon from his waistband and, at some point, drop it. Unfortunately, that weapon was clearly still in its holster.

Several commenters have suggested that it did not matter, in making a deadly force decision, whether the weapon was or was not in its holster. If it was pointed at the officers, they had lawful justification to fire. This is a common scenario in shoot/don�t shoot training videos which one can reasonably expect that officers of a major metropolitan agency have experienced. Officers are expected to deal with exactly this kind of situation and train for it. Competent officers live in horror of shooting someone, even if completely justified, who turns out to have had in their hand a billfold or other item rather than the handgun the officer thought was there. Officers are expected to accurately make these distinctions before firing. Because they practice these scenarios, officers should be able to tell the difference, by observing a variety of factors, between someone trying to disarm or show them something, or someone in the drawing sequence of bringing a handgun on target from a holster. Officers do this successfully every day and untold thousands of citizens are alive because of their training and their ability to make these distinctions. To suggest that officers have no such duty would have disastrous consequences for us all, freeing officers to shoot at the merest hint of, rather than at reasonably convincing evidence, of danger.

Another commenter observed that officers were trained to shoot until they have stopped the actions that gave them justification to shoot and that initial action--a suspect preparing to shoot--is always faster than reaction--an officer�s response. Both are true, but with qualifications. Not only are officers trained to shoot to stop, but may legally use any number of rounds reasonably required, so long as they were initially justified in shooting. However, they are also responsible for each and every round fired and the safety of innocents. How then does one determine when the suspect has ceased hostilities and that shooting should stop? By observation. Officers must indeed be sufficiently aware of any situation so as to briefly pause after firing several rounds to determine if more are required. That this might take a second or less is not the issue. The only reasonable alternative is that once an officer fires a single round, they must empty their magazine until they are forced, by lack of ammunition, to finally assess the situation as they reload. This is obviously lunacy, but what other practical possibility exists? Action is indeed almost always faster than reaction, but officers understand this, and accepting it, train to overcome, to the greatest possible degree, this inherent disadvantage. This is absolutely necessary to prevent officers from firing too quickly with insufficient justification. No, they don�t have to absorb a suspect�s first round before returning fire, but there is a substantial range of action/response between firing too quickly and not responding properly. An officer�s actions in that gray area will be judged later by those who are not under fire and have months to review decisions officers had to make in seconds. This too, police officers understand and grudgingly accept.

Another commenter wondered about how the officers involved might have handled the approach to the situation differently. Officers train for situations of this kind, and again, to be kind, the approach in this shooting (based on what is currently known) does not appear to be what one would find in a �how to� textbook. In potential shooting situations, the police are trained to do whatever is necessary to control and contain the situation, and to the greatest degree possible, to protect the public. In other words, they should not do anything to provoke a fire fight in the middle of a crowd. Of course, bad guys don�t always give the police that option.

In this case, there is evidence to suggest that the police knew or should have known that they had the element of surprise. Apparently one or more officers were near the Costco entrance, perhaps even inside, and Scott and his girlfriend Samantha Sterner, walked past them. At that point, the police apparently did not know that Scott was the suspect they sought, and his behavior was obviously unremarkable to those officers. Update 4 will provide additional details about this, including the fact that Shai Lierley, the Costco security employee was apparently following Scott in the store, keeping him in sight while relaying Scott�s actions in real time to a dispatcher by cell phone. The police did know, for one of the first officers on the scene had ordered the evacuation, that all of the Costco customers were trying, simultaneously, yet in an apparently orderly manner, to leave the main doors of the store. At some point, a store employee pointed to Scott, essentially yelling �there he is!� This was apparently the first moment that the responding officers knew that Scott was their suspect, and the officers, exposed and caught by surprise in the open, with many innocent citizens in the line of fire, drew their weapons and the deadly confrontation began.

What should the officers have done? Remember, please, that I do not have a diagram of the Costco store and parking lot and that many of the details that I, or any competent tactician would need to render a truly informed opinion are, at this point, unavailable. However, common police training and experience do suggest a better (though not the only possible) approach.

Without being able to recognize the suspect on sight, and knowing only that he was still inside the store and was not actively, continuously violent, maintaining the element of surprise by silently approaching the store (which may have been done), parking police vehicles out of sight of the front doors, and keeping uniformed officers out of sight would have been wise. In a parking lot full of cars, this would not have been difficult. Calling in plainclothes personnel such as detectives or administrators would have also been wise if time permitted.

The next (in fact, a continuing) concern should have been knowing where Scott was and exactly what he was doing. As a field training officer, I always taught my trainees to, whenever possible, observe an animal in its natural habitat for a time before interacting with it. The officers should have identified Scott, kept their presence concealed and watched him for as long as possible. Absent an active shooter situation, which this clearly was not, this is almost always the smart thing to do. If, as this situation clearly indicated, Scott was unaware of the police and was showing every intention of simply walking to his vehicle, they should, while keeping him in sight, have allowed him to do just that. Why? To learn as much as possible about his state of mind and intentions through direct observation, to possibly locate his handgun, to minimize the possibility of a potential hostage situation and to separate Scott from the hundreds of customers streaming out of the store with him. Once Scott was in the parking lot, perhaps with many empty cars as a safer shooting backstop for errant rounds, only then should he have been confronted. Following this procedure would not only have been safer for the public, but would have allowed officers to maintain control of the situation, and to direct additional officers to keep citizens out of the line of fire as Scott was confronted.

A commenter suggested that Scott might have been brought under physical control by officers, and this is a possibility, but in order to work, the take down must have been a total surprise allowing Scott no time to react--as anyone might react to being rushed or grabbed by several people by surprise--before the officers could take physical control of him, identify themselves, and with luck, allow him to relax and be disarmed. This could have been a viable option, but again, allowing Scott to separate himself from the rest of the crowd before taking any action should have been high on the officer�s priority list. Unfortunately, what is known suggests strongly that the officers were completely surprised by Scott�s appearance at the door, and caught in the open, immediately drew down on Scott and began to yell conflicting orders.

Interestingly, Metro Capt. Patrick Neville has said that none of the customers were ever in danger from police fire as the three officers ensured that a pillar that supported a canopy was the backdrop for their fire. To observe that this is, again to be kind, fanciful, is an understatement. Such a pillar could have scarcely been much wider than, if as wide as, a human torso, and would likely have been made of concrete, structural steel, or some combination of the two. Rounds striking it would not have been absorbed, but deflected at unpredictable angles. The only possible way that such a construct could have served as even a dangerous backstop is if it was directly behind Scott in a straight line with the officer�s fire, which would have to place them actually closer than shoulder to shoulder as they fired in order to ensure that each missed round fired struck the pillar dead center at an exact right angle to minimize the risk of ricochet. This is, of course, practically impossible. God forbid that any of them were behind the others as they fired (the potential consequences of that should be obvious).

One of the larger problems for the police will be exactly how many rounds were fired, by whom, and where did each round come to rest? The police have acknowledged only seven rounds thus far and all were reportedly hits on Scott, none of which exited his body to strike anything else. At least one round, however, seems to have been a rather miraculous shot. As Update 3 pointed out, this kind of accuracy, while possible, is against the laws of probability. The idea that three officers, caught by surprise and engaging seconds later in a firefight would have the presence of mind to simultaneously pick out a pillar in the background, realize that it would serve as an appropriate bullet stop, and/or maneuver so as to place it at the termination of their line of fire, is utter, after the fact, dissembling nonsense. These issues should be pursued by the local media until they are convincingly and honestly answered or refuted.

Finally, for this update to an update, a commenter took exception to my assertion that we want police officers to be type A, adrenaline fueled personalities. Please allow me to elaborate. Police work has been said to be, quite accurately, 99% boredom and 1% sheer terror. Any police officer who will not admit to having been scared should be immediately suspect. All sane officers are, from time to time, scared. However, they are scared so often that they learn how to effectively control and channel that fear, that adrenaline that all humans experience as the fight or flight response to danger, or they leave police work. We do indeed want our police to be aggressive, apparently fearless, brave and assertive, but we expect them to be calm, rational, humane, analytical and right 100% of the time. Special forces soldiers must possess essentially the same personalities. They are commonly known as the quiet professionals. So it is with the police. They have an extraordinarily difficult job that makes extraordinary demands on them, demands that few human beings would want to experience or could handle. Yet, they know all of this and accept it. We honor them by demanding that they adhere to the highest standards of their profession and when we do not, we dishonor those who do.

Confederate Yankee will post Update 4 later in the week.

� Hide "The Erik Scott Shooting: Update 3.2"

---

From this:

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13224120/coroners-inquest-day-5

It says:

"Late Monday, Metro homicide detective Peter Calos took the stand to talk about the firearms Scott was carrying the day of the shooting. Det. Calos showed the jury Scott's Kimber .45 that was found at the scene of the shooting. Calos also showed the Ruger .380 handgun found in Scott's pocket as he was being transported to the hospital."

posted by Skip at September 27, 2010 09:12 PM

---

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/27/erik-scott-day5/

In the ambulance, he found a small handgun in Scott�s right pocket and some ammunition clips in his left pocket, Thorpe said. Those items were immediately given to the police officer who accompanied them in the ambulance.

posted by Kevin at September 27, 2010 11:20 PM

---

Regarding the high hit rate - You also notice the delay in the shots on the tape. It's not usually difficult to shoot a person laying prone and immobile several feet in front of you when you take an extra second to aim. It's kind of difficult to see how else he could have been shot unless he was prone.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/coroners-inquest-erik-scott/
12:25 p.m.
Dr. Alane Olson, a medical examiner at the Clark County Coroner's office...

She said five of the shots entered his back and two entered the front of his body. One of the bullets entered his buttocks area, traveled up through his bowels and lodged in his chest.

posted by Kevin at September 27, 2010 11:34 PM

---

"She said five of the shots entered his back and two entered the front of his body."

Sounds like he was shot from the front twice, went down, and was shot 5 times more in the back while on the ground and likely incapacitated.

posted by JTW at September 28, 2010 03:37 AM

---

I'm a former LEO and feel some qualification to speak to the issue.

I believe Costco is at fault for enforcing an unpublished policy. The Costco caller failed to mention this to the dispatcher nor did the dispatcher ask. Costco employees even designated Mr. Scott for the police.

The dispatcher is at fault for failing to ask if caller has a published concealed weapons sign and if the subject claimed to have a CCW.

The performance of the three officers would be comedic were it not for the consequences. In the initial moments of the encounter, the conflicting commands indicates a profound lack of appropriate training and policy. In other words, when they encountered Mr. Scott, no one was in control giving orders nor did they have a standardized response for such orders. It would also appear the officers were lacking in knowledge of the laws they were sworn to uphold.

I'm sorry but Mr. Scott contributed to this. The proper response in the face of conflicting commands would be to stand still until the hysteria dies down then ask whom is in charge and suggest one officer take charge of his weapons from behind. The point is to de-escalate the situation to point where people are talking rather than shouting.

posted by Jerry in Detroit at September 28, 2010 08:54 AM

---

Jerry -
Based on the information so far, Scott was dead no matter what he did. Stand still; drop the gun; get on the ground. No matter which of these three conflicting commands he tried to obey, he was up for grabs by the other two.

LV police have a rich history of shooting people who weren't threats and then getting off.
And the fact that ALL of the available video from this latest episode has disappeared proves the premise.
Moral to this story? As obumble said, "Stay out of Las Vagas".

posted by emdfl at September 28, 2010 09:18 AM

---

I am a 20 year Las Vegas resident.I do not want an officer on my police force that cannot identify a holstered weapon from a drawn firearm. Officer Mosher also lied on the stand about how the gun in this holster is capable of being fired.There are no trigger holes on this holster,as he stated,"I own the same holster.For a revolver.It can be fired in the holster." These officers created a situation that threatened everyone in that foyers life.There were no reports of shots fired, branishing, or threatening with that weapon.God forbid that my teenage children answer a cell phone while recieveing a ticket or speaking with an Officer like this one.I do not believe all Metro Officers are this incompitent.There is no excuse for the way in which this was handled.

posted by JohnH at September 28, 2010 02:12 PM

---

To the author. Why, if these officers are suspect until the completion of this inquest,are they allowed to still carry their firearms?

posted by JohnH at September 28, 2010 02:28 PM

---

"Scott's postmortem blood test showed high levels of the painkiller morphine and the anti-anxiety drug Xanax. Calos testified that though Scott had a concealed-weapons permit, carrying a firearm while under the influence of drugs is a felony."

"Scott's wallet contained registration cards for seven guns, including the two he carried, and his concealed-weapon permit listing four guns, including the Kimber, he said.

The permit did not list a Ruger, but it did include a similar Keltec .380-caliber."

It should also be pointed out that one of pro-Scott witnesses was also a professional liar, a public defender, a welfare lawyer who steals money from taxpayers.

"Shopper Bettie Lou Travis, a senior citizen with a shock of white hair, said she saw Scott pull something from his side.

'Oh my gosh, he's going to pull a gun,' she recalled thinking after seeing him raise the weapon toward an officer."

So, did Bettie Travis contribute to someone that causes you to discount her statement? Is Bettie Travis a liar?

It appears that you and Erik Scott are setting the basis for the end of CCW in this country. Gun advocates used to brag that CCW holders were the most law abiding people, but now you are defending a drug using felon.

You will rue this day when real gun rights advocates and the public start to lose their rights due to the crazed actions of Erik Scott and his defenders.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/costco-shopper-opens-monday-inquest-testimony-103870684.html

She ducked after hearing gunfire.

posted by Federale at September 28, 2010 04:32 PM

---

I have not heard any testimony of a crazed Mr. Scott in the store. I have watched every minute of this inquest. All information was from a third party. Officers never had eyes on knowledge of what he was doing. Mosher is the one who initiated the code red.He was in fact so crazed that he walked right by Mosher.There was no serial numbers on the CCW permit.It was originally miss identified by the detective displaying the weapon.His levels of drugs are after the fact,it was ALLEGED at the time of the shooting.I also happen to own many registered firearms and support 2nd amendment rights and believe in firearms ownership.

posted by JohnH at September 28, 2010 05:40 PM

---

I'm the poster referencing subject/officer interaction times. My point was that it is unreasonable to assume an officer can observe a subject drawing an object from their waistband, orient themselves as to what exactly it is, make a decision as to whether they should fire or not, and actually fire in the time it takes a subject- if they actually are drawing a weapon- to fire.
From the referenced website, untrained students unfamiliar with firearms were able to draw and fire from a waistband at an average of .23 seconds and as fast as .09 seconds(admittedly this is with their hand already at waist level) with an officer reaction time to take an unsighted shot at 15 feet at .64 seconds. For all those who wonder how an officer could possibly shoot someone drawing a holstered weapon, or a wallet- that's why. It happens that fast- if the subject is actually pulling a weapon with the intention to fire, it is almost impossible for an officer to delay to confirm exactly what is being drawn in time to stop it. Police are not perfect.
I am not trying to justify what the police did- but I am trying to point out the fractions of a second in which these things occur.
Similarly, the website has articles showing how long it takes to stop shooting. Officers directed to start firing when a light comes on and cease when it goes off (simulating shooting until a threat stops) were shown to take ~.5 second. From the study, " ...if the officer were reacting as quickly as he could to pull that trigger, there is not a human being on the face of the earth that could react quickly enough to interrupt the trigger pull motion."
Now, this is an officer simply reacting to a light turning off, not trying to protect their own or others lives. Given the adrenaline and difficulty in discerning a subjects actions- turning to run or turning to engage others? Falling from being hit or diving to avoid cover?

Most of this may be irrelevant to this particular incident but I feel it's worth mentioning due to the many generalizations being made which don't acount for the speed involved in many shootings. Additionally, this seemed to be a very static event vice a dynamic event where subject and officer are both moving.

posted by styrgwillidar at September 28, 2010 06:37 PM

---

My experience teaches me that few officers will risk not only their reputations but their careers and potentially, their freedom, when so little is at stake.

The fatal flaw in this reasoning is that the testiliars do not believe that there is any actual risk of prosecution. They expect the thin blue line to protect them.

posted by Phelps at September 28, 2010 07:04 PM

---

Another great article! Thank you for taking the time to analyze and comment on this case. May God bless you for your efforts to educate the public and hopefully save lives in the future without compromising our Constitutional rights.

posted by DisabledVeteran at September 28, 2010 07:37 PM

---

Moncler homme
Moncler Vestes
Moncler femme
Veste Blouson
Doudoune Moncler

Omega Watches
IWC Watches
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel bags 2010
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel bags 2010

Moncler V��tements
Blousons Moncler 2010
Moncler Vestes
Veste Blouson
Doudoune Moncler

channel bags 2010
Chanel Purses

Aigner Watches
Breguet Watches
best sports watch
best watch
the best watch Replica watch
Concord watches
white gold watches
mens gold watches

Christian Louboutin Shoes
Christian Louboutin Boots
Christian Louboutin Pumps
Christian Louboutin Sandals
Christian Louboutin Slingback

Christian Louboutin 2010
Jimmy Choo Shoes
fashion shopping
Manolo Blahnik Shoes
Yves Saint Laurent Shoes
Christian Louboutin News

posted by rewrwe at October 5, 2010 11:33 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Moncler homme
Moncler Vestes
Moncler femme
Veste Blouson
Doudoune Moncler

Omega Watches
IWC Watches
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel bags 2010
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel bags 2010

Moncler V��tements
Blousons Moncler 2010
Moncler Vestes
Veste Blouson
Doudoune Moncler

channel bags 2010
Chanel Purses

Aigner Watches
Breguet Watches
best sports watch
best watch
the best watch Replica watch
Concord watches
white gold watches
mens gold watches

Christian Louboutin Shoes
Christian Louboutin Boots
Christian Louboutin Pumps
Christian Louboutin Sandals
Christian Louboutin Slingback

Christian Louboutin 2010
Jimmy Choo Shoes
fashion shopping
Manolo Blahnik Shoes
Yves Saint Laurent Shoes
Christian Louboutin News

posted by rewrwe at October 5, 2010 11:33 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Despite the possibility that Odonnell is not as conservative as she appears and that she may lose the general election, there really was nothing to lose in supporting here.

Coons = Castle legislatively. No substantive difference. Ont he other hand, any opportunity to pry a career politician's ass out of his seat should not be overlooked, even if the candidate is less than satisfying. Not so much a "lesser of two evils" approach but a direct approach to thwart the evil that you know in favor of at least a chance of something better. If Odonell goes bad, there is always the chance to try someone new in 2012. No election is permanent and politicians need to learn that.

posted by Professor Hale at September 27, 2010 12:44 PM

---

I ALWAYS vote against the "lesser of two evils," As I cannot remember a candidate who I ever agreed with completely!

posted by cas at October 1, 2010 07:03 PM

---

Moncler homme
Moncler Vestes
Moncler femme
Veste Blouson
Doudoune Moncler

Omega Watches
IWC Watches
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel bags 2010
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel bags 2010

Moncler V��tements
Blousons Moncler 2010
Moncler Vestes
Veste Blouson
Doudoune Moncler

channel bags 2010
Chanel Purses

Aigner Watches
Breguet Watches
best sports watch
best watch
the best watch Replica watch
Concord watches
white gold watches
mens gold watches

Christian Louboutin Shoes
Christian Louboutin Boots
Christian Louboutin Pumps
Christian Louboutin Sandals
Christian Louboutin Slingback

Christian Louboutin 2010
Jimmy Choo Shoes
fashion shopping
Manolo Blahnik Shoes
Yves Saint Laurent Shoes
Christian Louboutin News

posted by rewrwe at October 5, 2010 11:28 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

One thing -- how many registrations any person has is meaningless. You can only vote once. So I want you to show me how the boogey man is going to come up with thousands of BODIES who are willing to risk arrest to try to vote more than once. This whole thing is rightwing fairytale that only the braindead base buy into. I work as a polling place volunteer and in 20 years we have never had a documented case of voter fraud.

posted by Jeff at September 26, 2010 10:32 AM

---

You are correct, it doesn't matter how many registrations one person has, it's how many people take advantage of those registrations, since many localities don't require positive identification. Also, flooding the offices with thousands of bogus forms overwhelms the system, causing the workers to approve applications without proper scrutiny due to time constraints, simple,ingenious and proven effective

posted by Paul B at September 26, 2010 10:53 AM

---

Jeff, do you live in Houston? Do you live in Texas? Oh, I see.

posted by Fred Beloit at September 26, 2010 11:54 AM

---

Fred, I live in Houston, Texas. I have for my entire adult life.

The problem with Harris County is that the Republicans who have been in charge of voter registration (Paul Bettencourt and Leo Vasquez) slow walk registrations -- they have been sued over it twice -- the first suit was settled and required the office to live up to its duties -- it hasn't, hence the second suit -- and that those Republicans have been sharing voter registration information with the county Republican party, but not the county Democratic party.

This is not about SEIU. It's about Republicans making a last stand, as they will lose this office in November. If you doubt that prediction, just look at the GOP's candidate for the race.

posted by Michelle at September 26, 2010 12:08 PM

---

Michelle:

So the thousands of fraudulent registrations by a liberal group are because of the GOP stalling voter registrations?

Wow. I'm amazed. I guess logic escapes you.

posted by tm at September 26, 2010 12:27 PM

---

tm -- that's funny -- "fraudulent" registrations? ha ha.

The GOP responsible for voter registration slow walks all registrations. Of course they are going to bellyache about all of the "thousands" of registrations submitted. Vasquez is whining about having to do his job.

I guess that logical to you ;)

posted by Michelle at September 26, 2010 12:44 PM

---

Having worked with voter registration, and been involved in several instances of multiple voter registration, some need to be informed that a person that registers under 10 different names and addresses can vote 10 times.

posted by dahni at September 26, 2010 10:44 PM

---

Michelle,

one more time please...

What does the Republican Party have to do with registering illegal aliens to vote?

What does Sears and Roebuck have to do with registering illegal aliens to vote?

What does vanilla ice cream have to do with registering illegal aliens to vote?

What does anything have anything to do with registering illegal aliens to vote except the fact that Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Steve Caddle, who also works for the SEIU, decided to do it?

posted by Adriane at September 26, 2010 11:54 PM

---

I only hope that stories like this eventually results in a lashback which cleans up voter registration and meaningful voter ID legislation. In the meantime: "If it's not close, they can't cheat"

posted by Formerly known as Skeptic at September 27, 2010 02:54 PM

---

yah, the GOP is responsible for voter registration delays when Dems submit hundreds of thousands of fraudulent registration cards in a town with only a few thousands inhabitants.

Perfectly logical.

posted by JTW at September 28, 2010 03:41 AM

---

How does someone vote twice? By being registered in more than one precinct, like the situation... in Houston.

posted by Phelps at September 28, 2010 06:59 PM

---

Moncler homme
Moncler Vestes
Moncler femme
Veste Blouson
Doudoune Moncler

Omega Watches
IWC Watches
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel bags 2010
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel bags 2010

Moncler V��tements
Blousons Moncler 2010
Moncler Vestes
Veste Blouson
Doudoune Moncler

channel bags 2010
Chanel Purses

Aigner Watches
Breguet Watches
best sports watch
best watch
the best watch Replica watch
Concord watches
white gold watches
mens gold watches

Christian Louboutin Shoes
Christian Louboutin Boots
Christian Louboutin Pumps
Christian Louboutin Sandals
Christian Louboutin Slingback

Christian Louboutin 2010
Jimmy Choo Shoes
fashion shopping
Manolo Blahnik Shoes
Yves Saint Laurent Shoes
Christian Louboutin News

posted by rewrwe at October 5, 2010 11:22 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

Readers commenting on the first two installments have raised concerns about the relative veracity of police officers and lawyers in interpretation of the issues relating to this case. Each has an important role to play in the criminal justice system, and sometimes, those roles overlap, to the discomfort of all involved. Perhaps it would be useful to address an issue that will become more important as the case goes on: The relationships of lawyers--defense and prosecutorial--with the police.

Police attorney relationships are far more complex than one might imagine, and seldom anything like those depicted on TV police dramas. Describing them as love/hate relationships might be a good baseline for further consideration. Attorneys generally consider themselves to be more educated and thus, more intelligent than police officers who by comparison often have no higher education. While more and more police agencies are requiring at least an associate�s degree (two years of college), a substantial portion of American police officers have only a high school education.

This is not, in and of itself, a bar to excellence in law enforcement. In many ways, excellent officers are born with a particular set of genetic endowments that give them distinct and obvious advantages over others regardless of their respective amounts of higher education. Simply put, some people are just born better capable of excelling in some jobs than others. While a reasonable argument can be made that an undergraduate degree has the potential to produce a well rounded individual with a broad base of potentially useful knowledge, common sense and street smarts tend to trump a bachelor�s any day in police work. At the same way, law schools produce graduates with a very wide range of practical abilities. Abraham Lincoln, for example, was known as an outstanding lawyer, but spent not a day in law school.

Some attorneys find it difficult to see police officers as professionals, looking down on them in very real ways. Police officers tend not to respond well to condescension, and this can lead to real tension in the relationships between officers and prosecutors in particular. It should not be assumed that prosecutors are automatically friends and colleagues of the police, and it should surely not be assumed that they will, always and in every case, support or cover for the police. This makes perfect sense if a given prosecutor believes officers to be lower than him or herself on the evolutionary ladder.

However, it can almost always be expected that defense attorneys will have an adversarial relationship with the police. The old maxim stands true: If the law and the facts are on your side, argue the law and the facts. If not, attack the police. Lawyers on all sides are supposed to seek justice above all, but some defense attorneys are predisposed to believe that the police are dim witted perjurers and brutalizing racists, and feeling the system thereby stacked against themselves and their clients, sometimes cut corners to try to even the playing field that they perceive is tilted in the prosecution�s favor. Such male lawyers often wear ponytails. Go figure.

It may also be useful to consider that most attorneys are not, in fact, expert in the Constitution and the law as it applies to the criminal justice system (as in medicine, lawyers generalize or specialize), and that many police officers may often have more practical knowledge of specific statutes, procedures and methods than many attorneys. In my final police assignment, I was a detective specializing in stalking and the burglary of vehicles. In that role, I of necessity learned a great deal about the related statutes, court precedent relating to search and seizure, psychology, the applicable insurance statutes and many other esoteric bits of knowledge. Knowing this, prosecutors--and sometimes defense attorneys--often asked questions about where to find specific statutes, their interpretation and application and related issues. I doubt that any of them considered me a law enforcement Einstein (nor did I), but they were practical enough to consult a useful, available source. Wise men know and accept, above all, what they don�t know.

With this in mind, can any meaningful conclusions be drawn from the apparent relationship of the Las Vegas prosecutors and the Metro Police? Can reasonable inferences be made based on the performance of the police and prosecutors in the Coroner�s Inquest and the eventual verdict? Indeed they can.

GENERAL IMPRESSIONS OF THE INQUEST TO DATE (09-24-10):

Scott has been overwhelmingly portrayed by prosecutors as a drug addict so badly and visibly impaired by drugs that he was prostrating himself on check out conveyors, throwing merchandise about the store, threatening and alarming staff and customers, and who, when confronted by police, drew and pointed a weapon at them, causing them to immediately shoot him seven times, according to Dr. Alane Olson a medical examiner with the Las Vegas Coroner�s Office. Two rounds initially fired by Officer William Mosher struck Scott in the chest, and five fired by Officers Joshua Start and Thomas Mendiola, struck him from the rear, including one that entered Scott�s buttocks, traversed his bowels and lodged in his chest. These five bullets, but particularly the bullet that entered Scott�s buttocks, will figure prominently in the future. Olson also testified that Scott had �lethal levels� of Morphine and Xanax in his blood.� However, several witnesses contradicted the prosecution�s tone and theory. Because no cross examination of witnesses was allowed, it�s difficult to tell with certainty if these statements were an unexpected and unwelcome surprise to the prosecutors or were included in an attempt to provide the appearance of balance to the televised proceedings.

SOME EXAMPLES OF TESTIMONY SUPPORTING THE PROSECUTION THEORY:

Arlene Houghton, a cashier, said Scott lost his balance and �tumbled onto a checkout conveyor belt, � and that Samantha Sterner, Scott�s girlfriend, propped him up on a shopping cart. Houghton said Scott�s face was flushed, his eyes unfocused and glassy. �He turned around and looked at me and said, �I guess I really am (expletive)-up,� and they walked away.�

Cashier John Nikitas said Scott knocked over a sign. �He told the lady with him, �I told you I should not be in this effing place when I�m this drunk.��

Coleen Kullberg, a part time Costco employee was leaving the store and saw Scott staring at an officer who told him to get on the ground �at least five times.� She said �he reached behind him and pulled out his gun and aimed it at the officer...at that time the officer shot him.� Kullberg described Scott, just prior to being shot: �He was like dazed. He was just looking at him. He wasn�t obeying any of his commands.�

Security Officer Shai Lierley and Assistant Manager Vince Lopez spoke with Scott separately and told him that his gun wasn�t allowed. According to Lopez, Scott became �extremely agitated,� and told Lopez �...it�s a (expletive)-up policy and he continued to say he was a Green Beret, he could carry a gun wherever he went, and he wasn�t going to put up with that.� Lopez also testified that Scott imitated a gun with his hand, put it to Lopez�s head and said that if someone really did that, he would take care of the situation.

Customer Annette Eatherton saw Scott, being confronted by the officers, reach for his waist, and heard an officer say, ��don�t do that, don�t do that,� and he did it and they shot him.� After the first shot, Eatherton saw a gun in a �gun rug� fall to the ground in front of Scott. Annette�s husband Wentworth gave similar testimony but thought that Scott was trying to disarm, not shoot.

SOME EXAMPLES OF TESTIMONY CONTRADICTING THE PROSECUTION THEORY:

Edward Fishman heard an officer order Scott to �drop it,� and heard no other commands. He could not see anything in Scott�s hands and saw Scott reach toward his side, his shirt came up, and he was shot. Fishman did not see or hear Scott take an aggressive stance, point anything at the officer, or say anything. Fishman, a physician, said that after being shot, Scott�s hands were above his head before he fell to his knees and then face down on the ground. Fishman did not see anything drop from Scott�s hands or anything on the ground near him.

Fishman watched an officer handcuff Scott, but no one checked his pulse. Fishman testified that he was so shocked and surprised that none of the officers did anything to help Scott that he was to afraid to approach and ask to assist.

Customer Wendy Wolkenstein saw an officer with his gun drawn confront Scott outside the store. The officer was yelling at Scott to get down on the ground. Herding her children behind cover, she saw Scott�s elbow move back toward his waist or pocket and the officers fired. Looking back at Scott, she saw his hands in the air. She did not hear Scott say anything to the officers, but his back was to her.

Scott�s girlfriend, Samantha Sterner, did not testify, possibly on the advice of her attorney, who told the media that she was anxious to testify, but not in a one-sided forum. Prosecutors instead played a recording of her statement to police made after the shooting.

Sterner told the police that Scott was acting normally and his interaction with Costco employees was �amicable,� though she said she wasn�t present for all of those interactions. She did tell Scott, as they walked toward the exit that he was probably the reason for the evacuation, and he seemed �surprised.� Sterner saw an employee point out Scott to a uniformed officer as they stepped outdoors.

�He (Officer William Mosher) immediately draws his weapon and tells him to get on the ground,� Sterner said, adding that Scott put his hands up, intending to disarm. Sterner screamed at the officers that Scott was in the military and had a concealed weapons permit. She told them not to shoot, but when Scott raised his shirt to reveal the gun and �...grabbed it to put it on the ground...�Mosher fired. Sterner believes that Mosher �...was too aggressive...� and believes he would have fired no matter what Scott did. "I just think that this officer was out of line,� she said.

TESTIMONY OF SCOTT'S PERSONAL PHYSICIANS:

Dr. Joseph Gnoyski did not believe that Scott was a drug seeker and took drugs to deal with pain, the treatment of which is Gnoyski�s speciality. He testified that Scott had a physiological dependency, and that over time, he was getting better. Of the three testifying physicians, only Gnoyski testified to ordering an MRI or similar diagnostic test for Scott. The MRI indicated that he did have back damage, which Gnoyski attributed to a �paratrooping accident,� �a football accident,� and �a more recent automobile accident.�

Gnoyski said �This guy [Scott] works out every day. It�s not like he is seeking a buzz just to lie around...I don�t believe this man was trying to get a buzz...It just doesn�t mesh with his character.� Gnoyski described Scott as an "elite athlete."

During a casual visit to his office, Gnoyski felt that Scott appeared groggy. �It wasn�t like he was out of control, that he was going crazy.� Gnoyski drafted a letter to terminate their relationship, but changed his mind. Gnoyski said �I have a lot of respect for him.�

Dr. Shari Klein treated Scott for about two years, until about ten months prior to the shooting. Klein testified that Scott, at some point, suggested that she prescribe Hydrocordone, but she did not prescribe that particular medication. She said that Scott stopped seeing her when she began a concierge practice (where a physician sees a limited number of patients, charging substantially more for the individual treatment) and he could no longer afford her.

Dr. Daniel Kim testified that he began treating Scott on 02-02-10 for chronic pain. Kim prescribed medication but felt that Scott was taking too much: �He doubled up everything that I gave to him.� Kim, who felt that Scott had an addiction to Hydrocordone, terminated Scott and gave him a list of detoxification centers. Kim would not agree that interactions with Scott led to Scott�s being shot but thought that he might have more forcefully suggested detoxification.

TESTIMONY ANALYSIS: This testimony attempts to portray Scott as a man so under the influence of drugs that he could barely stand, yet he also reportedly said that he was drunk, though the sources consulted for this article did not mention the presence of alcohol in Scott�s blood. Significant in the testimony of the doctors is the absence of the common behavior of drug addicts who try to trick multiple doctors to simultaneously prescribe large amounts of narcotic medications. Scott apparently sought out medical treatment for intractable pain, which was actually physiologically based, and worked with single physicians in turn.

Most witnesses testified that Scott not only did not respond to officers, but drew his weapon and pointed it at the officers, though one saw only an elbow moving toward Scott�s back and saw Scott�s hands �in the air� moments after being shot. Officer commands heard by witnesses range from �don�t do that; don�t do that,� to �get on the ground,� and �drop it,� but no clear picture was drawn of the time frame or circumstances, including which of the three officers made these statements or why.

Only one of the witnesses saw a gun �in a gun rug� fall to the ground. The others did not see a gun or see Scott point a gun at the officers. According to police testimony and a photograph produced at the Inquest, Scott�s .45 ACP 1911 type handgun at some point and in some way, made it to the ground somewhere near him and was photographed by police, reportedly where it was found. The weapon displayed in the photograph was still fully in its inside the waistband holster, cocked and locked (the most common method for carrying this type of handgun, with the safety apparently still on. What is most interesting is that the holster completely enclosed the trigger guard and trigger of the weapon on both sides of the frame. In order for Scott to have fired the weapon, he would have had to push his trigger finger between the leather, which was still likely tightly molded to the frame of the weapon, and the frame, snap off the safety--which was also at least partially, possibly fully, covered by the holster--with his thumb, or more likely, would have had to remove the holster, which would have taken a very emphatic and forceful downward flinging motion if made one handed, or most likely, would have required that Scott grasp the holster with his left hand to pull it from the handgun. Either option would have taken very obvious movements and time, time which Scott was not afforded. None of the witnesses testified to this. The testimony to date seems to support Sterner�s contention that Scott, surprised and trying to respond to conflicting commands delivered simultaneously and in a matter of seconds, was trying to disarm.

What is also missing from the media accounts is any time frame. A man removing a weapon to disarm himself does not move with the speed and obvious intent of a man trying to bring a muzzle on target to fire, yet there has been apparently no attempt by the prosecution to clarify this point. One might argue that an officer cannot be expected to tell the difference between a holstered, safed handgun being voluntarily surrendered and an unholstered handgun being brought rapidly, aggressively onto target, but this kind of situation is common in shoot/don�t shoot training and officers are expected to be well trained and calm enough to take the few fractions of a second necessary to be sure before firing. It is not easy, but no one is forced to become a police officer.

What is also remarkable is that while the prosecution and police have acknowledged the firing of seven rounds and at least generally accounted for the final resting places of those rounds, there has been no statement about the possible firing of additional rounds and where they came to rest. This is significant in that studies have uniformly found that in officer shootings, commonly less than 30% of rounds fired by officers strike their intended targets. Are we to understand that these three officers fired only seven rounds, and that all seven were hits? This would be particularly amazing if any of the rounds were fired after Off. Mosher�s original two rounds struck Scott in the chest. At that point, Scott fell to his knees and then onto his face, which presents another significant problem for the police and prosecution.

At the time of the shooting, Off. Moser, 38, had been working for LV Metro for approximately five years and one month. Media accounts have not indicated if he had prior law enforcement experience, but do speak of his involvement in one prior police shooting. This is also significant, but more on this shortly. Off. Joshua Stuart, 28, had been with Metro approximately one year and 11 months. Again, I�m unaware of any prior police experience. Off. Thomas Mendiola, 23, had been with Metro approximately one year and four months. Considering his age, it would have been unlikely that he had any prior police experience as 21 is the minimum age for police service virtually everywhere.

We do not, as yet, know exactly where the officers stood relative to Scott, or their distances from him at the time each shot was fired. Did they remain stationary until shooting ceased, or were they moving as they fired? We still do not know why they fired after Mosher�s initial two shots. Most disturbing, however is the improbability of Scott taking five rounds in the back under the currently known circumstances. The only reasonable scenario presented by the evidence known to the public is that Scott was facing all three officers who were also facing him. We can assume that the officers, two of whom had little apparent time on the job (this is a significant issue--ask any experienced cop), may have tried to move to one side or the other, remembering basic tactics, but all were likely oriented facing Scott, with one or two perhaps at a slight angle to his sides. All the testimony indicates that after the initial two shots, Scott dropped to his knees and then, fell forward, toward the officers, onto his face. Struck twice in the heart, he was likely rapidly bleeding out internally, and rapidly dropping blood pressure may have rendered him more or less immediately unconscious.

How then is it possible that he took five additional rounds in the back, and who fired them? Did any of the officers very quickly move around Scott, placing Scott between himself and his fellow officers? Did they fire while he was falling, or more likely, only after he was already face down? The Medical Examiner testified that she could not tell the distances from the muzzles of any of the shots, nor do media accounts reveal the tracks of any of the rounds, with one exception.

It is reasonable to believe, particularly with the unusual, one might say, phenomenal quality of the marksmanship displayed by the officers that they were quite close to Scott, which is, in and of itself, very significant. Let�s assume for the sake of an experiment that Scott is face down, his head toward the officers. Pace off ten or twelve feet--the width of many rooms in many homes--and, placing a friend, or if you�re a bit squeamish, a pillow, on the floor in Scott�s position relative to the officers, and point your imaginary handgun at the target. At even that distance, the human back is a small, hard to hit target and any rounds fired would travel downward, likely lodging in the pelvis, buttocks, or even the thighs. In any case, the bullet tracks would be at a steep angle and would traverse a great deal of the body unless they struck large bones. Moving closer to the target, notice how the angle changes, until, standing over the body, the target becomes much, much easier to hit--the distance from muzzle to body being two feet or less--and the bullets would traverse the body at an approximate right angle.

For the prosecution�s theory, however, the most vexing problem is the bullet that entered Scott�s buttocks, traversed his pelvis and lodged in his chest. Unless the muzzle of the handgun that fired the round was near the ground when the round was fired, it�s hard to imagine how this could have occurred unless the officer was not only behind Scott when the round was fired, and thus had placed Scott between himself and the other officers--a virtual circular firing squad all officers are taught to avoid at all costs--but was also diving to the ground or on the ground at the time. One other possibility is that the round was fired by a standing officer, and the bullet, striking the pelvis or spine, was deflected on an internal path parallel with Scott�s prone body, but the ME did not so testify, and the problem of how an officer, in what was a mere handful of seconds, was able to maneuver into a position that would make any of this possible still exists.

Off. Mosher�s reported prior shooting, which was apparently found to be justified, is of interest because the overwhelming majority of police officers complete their careers without having fired their weapons at anyone. Thus, the officer who has had to shoot a suspect on even one occasion is, in most police agencies, unusual. An officer who has shot two or more, in a short span of years, is even more unusual. This does not in and of itself prove wrong doing on the part of such an officer. Perhaps he was merely unlucky. Perhaps he worked in high risk areas, or in an assignment that made violent confrontations more likely. But the fact that this was Off. Mosher�s second shooting should cause anyone investigating this case to be extra careful to pay attention to detail, as should any prosecutor charged with reviewing the case in making a charging decision because thankfully, Off. Mosher is in an exclusive class among American police.

Some commenters have suggested that police officers look for opportunities to shoot citizens in a soft of bizarre initiation rite. Thankfully, the statistics, and experience, do not bear this out. Indeed, officers wonder how they will perform in a deadly force encounter, perhaps even hope that they might have the chance, but there is nothing sinister in this. In fact, they are repeatedly confronted with this issue in employment interviews and training. They have to consider such issues and be willing to run to, rather than away from, the sound of gunfire. Any officer who has asked him or herself whether they can and will fire at another human being, possibly taking their life, if necessary, and who has not answered firmly and affirmatively, is a danger to them self and the public. Officers are comforted by the knowledge that the odds are on their side; it is unlikely that they will ever find themselves in that situation. Still, type A, adrenaline fueled personalities--and in many respects, that�s who we want for police officers when maniacs intent or rape or worse are breaking into our homes--will wonder, and anticipate and train hard to be prepared if the worst ever comes to pass. That is what we pay them to do. And they will pray that they do the right thing and go home that night when their shift is done.

One of the fundamental questions in this case is whether any Costco employee actually asked Scott to leave the store and if so, his response to that request. It is reasonable to believe that if anyone representing Costco had asked Scott to leave at any time, the police would have noted it and the prosecutor would have been sure to secure such testimony, but thus far, this does not seem to be the case. Considering the very negative thrust of the other evidence presented to Scott�s detriment, if such evidence, of an angry, armed man refusing a lawful order to leave the premises existed, surely it would have been made public at the inquest, but it has not.

Also interesting is the exclusive testimony secured by Confederate Yankee regarding Scott�s character by a competitor of Scott�s. This testimony, which was not produced during the Inquest as the witness fears Metro and prosecutorial reprisal, does not support the negative character sketch drawn by the prosecution.

As expected, no Costco or other video was presented at the Inquest. Recent information indicates that the police will claim that all of the Costco video from every camera that might have captured an image simply does not exist due to an technical malfunction known to Costco before the event which was not corrected until after the event. While this is possible, one would surely be forgiven for questioning the convenience--for the police--of this kind of coincidence, particularly when such video has the potential to unambiguously resolve the central issues in the case. Whether any police recordings exist may never be known. At the very least, media outlets may be able to provide footage which indicates whether any police vehicles potentially equipped with video were pointing toward the area of the shooting. Most police video cameras are focused through the windshields of patrol cars. If it can be established that any police vehicles were pointed in that direction, the possibility of police video exists.

A quick side note in response to several posters: The criminal justice system is often behind times in adopting standards of evidence that reflect the latest, greatest technology. In all matters of evidence, original sources and items are virtually the universally required standard, though judges do usually have some flexibility in interpreting the related statutes. However, that interpretation will almost always take place long after evidence is gathered. The police will reasonably believe that they are required to gather original materials and sources unless they are absolutely certain that copies will suffice.

The potentially missing video remains, at the very least, a public relations disaster for the police, and one which may not go unnoticed by local political leaders. The Law Vegas Review-Journal reported on 09-25-10 that Clark County Commissioners were concerned by the �skewed� proceedings and would form a committee to review potential changes in the Inquest system to allow a more adversarial approach more likely to expose all of the relevant facts necessary to produce a fair result. In response, prosecutors said that in a more adversarial hearing, �police officers might not testify.� This should be cause for real public concern in that any prosecutor knows that officers have no choice about such matters and are required by law to testify. Officers know this too. In fact, prosecutors routinely issue subpoenas mandating the appearance of officers at even routine hearings. This should be a matter of concern for Las Vegas residents as it may indicate that the prosecutors involved hold a low opinion of the intelligence of the public or may care little for what the public thinks. Yet at the moment, at least the potential for limited reform may exist.

Another bit of missing video, or potentially photography, is images of the merchandise allegedly strewn all over Costco by Scott. Several store employees have testified that Scott was so deranged that he was, in a virtual frenzy, ripping open merchandise and actually throwing it in all directions. If this was so, and to the degree suggested by Costco employee testimony, surely the police photographed it? Yet no media account of which I am aware mentions such evidence. It is another interesting coincidence that if the police did not record such potentially meaningful evidence, all internal and external Costco store video for that time is also apparently lost.

So it would appear that the prosecutors and the police are indeed on the same page in this case. Whatever animosity they might bear toward each other is being put aside and a common front presented. What is the significance of the apparent approach of the police and prosecutors to date? Even if one accepts their theory that Scott was a drug addict and an aggressive gun nut intent on carrying a gun wherever he wanted, who, through gross drug-induced impairment, brought about his own death, all of this should rightfully be nothing more than mitigating evidence that might have some bearing on the severity of a charge to be brought against the officers, or to be considered only after a potential future conviction as mitigating factors relating to sentencing.

What still remains is what the officers knew or reasonably could have known or inferred at the time they confronted Scott at the main entrance of Costco and made the decision to pull the trigger. It is this event, compressed in time, that should be the prosecutor�s foremost concern. Scott�s life history and his physical and mental health status could have, in at least some way, put him on a collision course with the police that day. But the ultimate question is whether they, knowing nothing about Scott but what they heard on the radio on the way to Costco, and apparently finding themselves surprised when a Costco employee suddenly pointed out a man they had never before seen, were justified under the law by his actions in the handful of seconds before they fired at least seven rounds into him. Under this, the only standard that truly matters, the evidence presented at the Inquest does not yet tend to favor or conclusively exonerate the police.

IN THE NEXT UPDATE, NUMBER 4: The 9-11 call and a partial radio transcript are meshed and analyzed.

Note: The primary sources for this article were the Las Vegas Sun and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

� Hide "The Erik Scott Shooting: Update 3"

---

Lawyers on all sides are supposed to seek justice above all, but some defense attorneys are predisposed to believe that the police are dim witted perjurers and brutalizing racists, and feeling the system thereby stacked against themselves and their clients, sometimes cut corners to try to even the playing field that they perceive is tilted in the prosecution�s favor.

I would consider them much more frivolous if they didn't have, what's it called, history on their side. I don't know how long you have been out of this line of work, but testilying is the standard now, especially in mid-size departments.

I work in the civil side, but we occasionally have police testify in cases, and I have never seen a cop's testimony jive with the documentary or physical evidence. Even when the evidence supports them, they somehow come up with a third, less probable story.

In response, prosecutors said that in a more adversarial hearing, �police officers might not testify.� This should be cause for real public concern in that any prosecutor knows that officers have no choice about such matters and are required by law to testify. Officers know this too. In fact, prosecutors routinely issue subpoenas mandating the appearance of officers at even routine hearings. This should be a matter of concern for Las Vegas residents as it may indicate that the prosecutors involved hold a low opinion of the intelligence of the public or may care little for what the public thinks.

Actually, I see it as the prosecutors involved having a low option of the officers' respect for the law. I could very easily see this as a combative police force that says, "tough, we're not testifying. What are you going to do, fire the whole department?"

So it would appear that the prosecutors and the police are indeed on the same page in this case.

What is most disturbing to me is that the police and Costco are on the same page as each other -- and no one else, including the few photographs we have. Is the prosecution in cooperation with the police, or with Costco's deep pockets? Are DAs elected officials in Nevada, and are they up for reelection soon?

posted by Phelps at September 26, 2010 11:59 AM

---

Any witness who states they saw a gun in Scott's hands are somewhat less than reliable, and their accounts should be thoroughly discounted in your analyses.

In the ambulance driver's report of the incident, written while they were driving back - and this report may not yet be generally available - the paramedics write that THEY REMOVED SCOTT'S GUN FROM HIS WAISTBAND HOLSTER and placed it on the ground.

This little FACT is somewhat at variance with a whole lot of what was said, and what some of the less acute observers who are saying they saw a gun in Scott's hands.

Also: Scott and Sam' walked by officers who were AT THE ENTRANCE when they were walking out, and THOSE police didn't see anything unusual (i.e., threatening) in Scott's attitude. It was ONLY after they'd passed by THOSE officers that the Costco part-time employee pointed out Scott and Sam' to the three officers (she was standing beside) who were involved in the shoot.

posted by davis,br at September 26, 2010 12:04 PM

---

Aargh ...not "from", but "with".

posted by davis,br at September 26, 2010 12:08 PM

---

I used to have the utmost respect and admiration for LEO's. I used to want to be around them and maybe know them. My pastor at Dewey Borea in Wisconsin was a longtime well respected LEO. One of the people I admire most here in the blogosphere is a retired LEO. I have a 1st cousin who is a state of OK LEO.

At one time in my life I thought to be a LEO.

You know what? I am so disgusted with Law enforcement in general today, this all makes me sick to my stomach.

It takes a man to be honest no matter what. Cowards lie. And cops that cover up lies and liars are just as mentally ill as the ones who screwed up. They are called enablers, codependants. In blue collar vernacular, CNF. Out of respect for this site I will not spell it out, but I will give a hint. The first C=crazy.

If any civi made the same mistake it would be life in prison or the death sentance.

The law applies across the board not parcelled out to those who have an in and know the words. Frankly if law enforcent personell decided they were not going to testify in a belligerant type of trial or hearing throw them in jail and then fire them. We got 8 million people out of work including a huge number of certified lawenforcment people who would love to have a job in Vegas.

posted by ron at September 26, 2010 12:37 PM

---

My ex-wife was an assistant district attorney in Memphis, and even as a prosecutor, she definitely considered police to be potential perjurers. That's from her experience of them lying at trial, not from prejudice against less educated people.

posted by Rich at September 26, 2010 12:41 PM

---

Thanks for the update on analysis.

Don't the police have open mics on their uniforms now? Surely those picked up some of the commands/conversation.

posted by Robert at September 26, 2010 12:49 PM

---

As for the video, there might be a reason for the police to "innocently" lie about them.

I won't name the store, except to say it is NOT COSTCO but I know for a fact that a major chain of stories has alot of domes that looks like it has cameras, and about 90% of them do not. That is right, they buy the domes to imply the existence of security cameras, without actually buying the cameras. So the truth might be that costco doesn't have cameras where you THINK they do, and are lying to us to cover that up.

I don't know, reading all this from the inquest, its really hard to figure out what the truth is. Some versions suggest the man was really intoxicated, some say he as trying to go for his gun, some says he was not. And the contradictions come from people who had no particularly good reason to lie.

I will add that even the pro-Scott version of things is questionable. I believe in the second amendment, but i believe in property rights, too. Costco had every right to say, "either the gun goes, or you go," and the moment he refused to remove himself or the gun, he became a trespasser. That doesn't fully justify the shooting, but it does put things in perspective.

posted by Aaron Worthing at September 26, 2010 01:05 PM

---

"...adrenaline fueled personalities--and in many respects, that�s who we want for police officers..."

No.We.Don't.

Once we get past this belief, policing can go back to service. If we don't get past it the police are in a lot of trouble as folks start realizing that if you're gonna get shot by the cops anyway, one might as well shoot first.

posted by Jeff at September 26, 2010 01:15 PM

---

Based on the testimony so far I don't see any possible justification for two officers who fired the rounds that hit him in the back. They were fired at a prone, unarmed and immobile person who was not resisting or presenting a threat of any kind. I'm wondering how this kangaroo court comes up with a way to justify that.

posted by Kevin at September 26, 2010 02:24 PM

---

Its interesting what posters chose to believe. I don't believe any cop in America cuffs a suspect then leaves him with a gun in his holster until the EMTs get there.

This whole thing is sad and the whole truth will never be know by anyone not involved.

Let's remember the law. If the Officers felt they or their fellow Officers were in deadly peril they had the legal right to shoot.

For them to be convicted of anything, you have to prove that is not what they THOUGHT.

One more point. If someone pulls a gun out in your direction, you react. You don't wait to see if the holster is still on the gun or if his finger is on the trigger.

I wonder how many of the armed citizens who post here would allow that without defending themselves, by a guy acting like Mr. Scott was acting.

posted by Paul Fels at September 26, 2010 03:24 PM

---

People who actually believe that a prone unmoving person with their empty hands visible presents an imminent threat that justifies shooting them 5 times in the back are suffering from psychosis. I don't believe that that government should issue psychotic people guns. I'd further suggest that the state should lock up psychotic people who kill people due to their delusions.

posted by Kevin at September 26, 2010 03:45 PM

---

There needs to be an independent forensic investigation of tbe video without a completely different agency reviewing there claims, they shouldnt be believed.

posted by Anonymous at September 26, 2010 03:58 PM

---

You left out the fact that Scott's drug levels were so high as to "be lethal to most people."

I see no evidence that the police have lied in this case.

posted by Austin at September 26, 2010 06:57 PM

---

First, I like this blog. Good thoughts here.
Now for my question. I'm new to the blog but you say your an officer so I will ask you to address this, as I think the officers main mistake was the way they initially approached Erik.
My neice is a leutenent for a Sheriff's office (as well as having completed FBI academy in VA) and I spoke at length with her last night.
Her only negative comment about the officers were, when they knew the store was being evacuated, 100+ people exiting in a condensed group...and Erik walks out calmly, keeps walking away from officers, THEY HAD THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE and would have been trained to 'take him down' (tackle) and restrain him if they truly thought he was ED. She said also that a calm man could still methodically be intending to shoot, so Erik being calm means little, but the factors of 1. there hadn't been a shooting yet (apparently, you never put a crowd in danger unless a shooting has already happened inside), 2. When the officer is behind him, he sees both hands and knows that he can 'take him down' and restrain him, especially with 2 additional officers for assistance as well as them holding their guns. 3. An officer would never startle a subject that is ED as you aren't sure of his response, UNLESS you are intending to get him restrained in a fluid movement.
so... let's say Erik was on drugs and let's say Erik was in an ED (Excited Dalerium) state, she said they are trained to approach the situation EXACTLY OPPOSITE how they did.
Now keep in mind, she repeatedly took the officer's side through the conversation, even enlightening me (and diffusing MY anger over some of this)...so for her to go into such detail, I believe her. Can you, as an officer, expand on that?

posted by reason111 at September 26, 2010 07:18 PM

---

Paul Fels says:
"Let's remember the law. If the Officers felt they or their fellow Officers were in deadly peril they had the legal right to shoot.
For them to be convicted of anything, you have to prove that is not what they THOUGHT."

In other words, this cop, like many others, thinks he is allowed to murder as many people as he likes, so long as he then says he "THOUGHT" he was in deadly peril.

Judging by the record, (though possibly I read too much Radley Balko) he is perfectly correct.

posted by Lark at September 26, 2010 08:03 PM

---

Note: The primary sources for this article were the Las Vegas Sun and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

You know LVRJ is the paper that sues everyone who uses their material, right? I know there are no direct quotes here, but I'd still be careful.

posted by Beej at September 26, 2010 08:16 PM

---

The Nevada FOP endorsed Obama & Reid, so the officers involved will not face prosecution.

posted by 5th Level Fighter at September 26, 2010 08:32 PM

---

Fels - You don't know what you're talking about. It is not and has never been the law that a cop's the subjective "feeling" that he/she is in danger, regardless of whether that feeling is reasonable under the circumstances, authorizes the use of deadly force. And your condescending comment about what posters choose to believe is best directed at yourself, since you base your analysis on a claim for which there is no credible evidence, i.e., that Scott "pulled out his gun" in the cops' direction and your conclusions about how Scott was acting in the face of contradictory and suspiciously missing evidence. Your post is nothing but unthinking, ill informed pro-cop nonsense.

posted by Smoke at September 26, 2010 09:03 PM

---

Aaron Worthing - Unless you take the position that it justified the use of deadly force that would otherwise have been unjustified - which is absurd - Scott's disputed trespasser status adds no "perspective" whatsoever.

posted by Smoke at September 26, 2010 09:14 PM

---

My husband is a 12 year Police veteran and I have been in the Military myself so I can see things clearly from this particular 'background'. It is as the other individual coming from a Police Force stand point has stated. The moment that Scott reached for the gun and grabbed it, whether or not he un-holstered it, the Police were within their rights to shoot him as this produced a possibly imminent fatal circumstance if he were to pull it out and begin shooting. I would have done the same thing that Mosher did. I have not seen any CONFLICT of information that he was told to 'get down' BEFORE he went for the weapon. There is also NO CONFLICT of 'witness' statements as to the obvious FACT that he 'went for something' underneath his shirt behind him which is where his gun was holstered.

Another FACT is that if you are under the influence of ANY NARCOTICS, prescribed or otherwise, it is ILLEGAL TO CARRY A WEAPON. PERIOD!! This fact does not make it correct to shoot a man down who is in that state and carrying BUT if he goes for the weapon after being told to 'get down on the ground' and he does not comply than he creates a volatile situation and it's up to the Officers to make the call. I am pretty sure that had Erik Scott (if he did not get the gun out of it's holster) had gotten the gun out of it's holster and actually fired it, whether accidentally OR intentionally, there would be a whole other barrage of people screaming and carrying on about how the Police should not have 'allowed' that to happen! They're (the Police) damned if they do and damned if they don't. This is all because of a few ignorant and nasty S.O.B.'s (a few Police) who think it's OK to abuse their positions. MOST cops are just doing the best that they can under the circumstances and it's all too easy for a 'civilian' to go off on tangents of misunderstanding when they are all safe in their cuddly homes while the cops are in harms way each day!

posted by T at September 26, 2010 09:42 PM

---

T,

Regardless of who's right and who's wrong here, past police actions, both petty and serious, have strongly contributed to a lot of folks' (my own included) reflexively anti-cop bias in cases like this.

Things like the Amadou Diallo and Sean Bell shootings don't help, but neither does the everyday "above the law" mentality of police. I imagine that, where you live, you also have those little black and blue stickers on cars. Essentially, a guarantee of no tickets for cops and their friends and families.

I think it boils down to this: When you see a police car on the road, or a policeman in public, do you feel safer, or more likely to be harassed? For too many people, the latter is not only a perception, but a reality.

posted by Jake Badlands at September 26, 2010 10:32 PM

---

Vin Suprynowicz

Once again, coroner�s inquest not open to the public

http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=598

"Sheriff Doug Gillespie visited us here at the Review-Journal offices on Aug. 3. He acknowledged the importance of an open-to-the-public inquest process to maintain public confidence in that process, and in his department. �I�m not lookin� at hidin� anything, nor is my organization,� the sheriff said. That�s why they were going to hold the Erik Scott inquest in the largest available courtroom, so all who wanted to attend could do so, the sheriff vowed. But that turned out to be the usual pile of crap."

Worth reading.

posted by Curtis Cope at September 26, 2010 11:08 PM

---

It almost seems that the Costco employees have discussed and aligned their testimony in regard to Erik being "drunk or drugged". It is human nature to attempt to justify actions that lead to such terrible results, and such a group consensus after the fact is not unlikely.

posted by Jeff at September 26, 2010 11:26 PM

---

for all you defending the cops ...
5 rounds in the back of a dead man ...
you should all be ashamed ...

posted by Jeff at September 26, 2010 11:27 PM

---

It looks like there are two of us Jeffs! And we posted at almost the exact same time.

A comment on the previous post by Austin. We keep hearing "lethal amounts" of drugs. Obviously it wasn't lethal, as he was still walking and talking. Use of the adjective "lethal" is not particularly descriptive, and it's continued use by the media is prejudicial. Even if it means that his tolerance was high, it doesn't confirm or deny that he was acting strangely.

---

You left out the fact that Scott's drug levels were so high as to "be lethal to most people."

I see no evidence that the police have lied in this case.
Posted by: Austin at September 26, 2010 06:57 PM

posted by Jeff II at September 27, 2010 12:10 AM

---

Gee, T, maybe you and your husband could put together a guide that lets us lowly civilians know what we're allowed to think and say.

Your post demonstrates the arrogance, "us v. them" mindset and dishonesty in evaluating police conduct that make citizens fear and distrust law enforcement.

posted by Smoke at September 27, 2010 12:48 AM

---

Paul Fels:

"Its interesting what posters chose to believe. I don't believe any cop in America cuffs a suspect then leaves him with a gun in his holster until the EMTs get there."

So now you think the EMTs lied about they being the ones to remove the gun from its holster?

posted by Greg at September 27, 2010 01:29 AM

---

One Pissed Mom
All three Officers needs to go to prison for murder!! Officer William Mosher always wanted to be famous he got it!

posted by Amy at September 27, 2010 03:13 AM

---

As a former cop, I can tell you that this incident and it's investigation stinks! I have no doubt that EVERYONE, wishes they could take back the bullets and undo the trigger pulls. Since you can't, they'll do EVERYTHING they can to to make sure that any exposure to liability is destroyed or limited.

You must remember that there are political careers on the line. "Ooops,"is never an adequate defense for killing and innocent man, which is exactly what happen here. Whether anyone will admit to it or not. They definitely won't do so in this case.

What remains is for the public to make their own judgments based upon what is being withheld and covered up, and the exact implications of those circumstances upon the average person who may be faced with any similar situation.

Given the totality of the circumstances, the police acted improperly and killed someone unnecessarily in this instance, calling into question, their judgment, training, selection and supervision at minimum. It is clear that all of this will be ignored and life will proceed as normal for everyone involved except the victim and his family and friends.

posted by mmm at September 27, 2010 06:41 AM

---

I recently saw a video of two police (a male and a female) officers that had stopped a guy in a Corvette. The male officer had the traffic violator on the ground and was in the process of placing restraints on his hands. The other officer had her gun drawn and pointed in the direction of both. It seems she couldn't keep her finger off the trigger.... her weapon went off and fired a round, luckily, missing both her partner and the traffic violator. At this point, she placed her weapon back in her holster.

These were Los Vegas police officers.

posted by Jim at September 27, 2010 09:55 AM

---

As far as I know, no EMT has testified that the took the gun off Mr. Scott, the claim was an internal document from the ambulance crew stated it.

If someone testifies to it, I will give it more credit, however, do YOU think a cop leaves the gun on the guy he just shot while he cuffs him, then just forget the evidence that justifes the shooting? Against all his training and his own best interest?

So the answer is "No I don't"

posted by Paul Fels at September 27, 2010 10:41 AM

---

"My husband is a 12 year Police veteran and I have been in the Military myself so I can see things clearly from this particular 'background'. It is as the other individual coming from a Police Force stand point has stated. The moment that Scott reached for the gun and grabbed it, whether or not he un-holstered it, the Police were within their rights to shoot him as this produced a possibly imminent fatal circumstance if he were to pull it out and begin shooting. I would have done the same thing that Mosher did. I have not seen any CONFLICT of information that he was told to 'get down' BEFORE he went for the weapon. There is also NO CONFLICT of 'witness' statements as to the obvious FACT that he 'went for something' underneath his shirt behind him which is where his gun was holstered. "

So if the police are simultaneously yelling contradictory commands at you, it's up to you to guess in which order you should obey them. And if you get the order wrong the police are justified in gunning you down? And although we have a 2nd Amendment, which guarantees that right, and although he had a Concealed Carry permit which signifies that he met local regulations, the mere possession of a firearm is justification for the police to begin shooting? Perhaps it's just me, but I would have thought that he would have actually drawn the weapon and attempted to fire at the officers before shooting was justified. I don't think "he made a suspicious move" is good enough.

posted by Mike Giles at September 27, 2010 10:47 AM

---

T,

"Another FACT is that if you are under the influence of ANY NARCOTICS, prescribed or otherwise, it is ILLEGAL TO CARRY A WEAPON. PERIOD!!"

Really? Can you cite that law for me, please? Is that the law where you are? Is that the law in Nevada? It's certainly not the law where I am.

posted by Tam at September 27, 2010 10:49 AM

---

Could anyone post the relevant section of Nevada law that justifies (a legal, not moral, term) the use of deadly force by police officers.

I know in New York State, the PERCEPTION of the Officer firing the shots does indeed determine if the officer can face criminal charges. This does not protect them from civil liability.

As to all the debate about video remember the cameras in retail stores are set up to cover the registers and parts of the store with valuable merchandise, not to give clear views of every inch of property, inside and out.

That doesn't mean there might not be relevant video, just that you can't count on it. Lots of banks get robbed without clear video of what happened, even though that is the type of event they are set up for.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Hate on, haters....

posted by Paul Fels at September 27, 2010 10:57 AM

---

It is unlawful under Nevada Law to carry under the influence:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec257

posted by Sebastian at September 27, 2010 11:20 AM

---

Often, an officer can not pause for even fractions of second. Here's a website based on University studies on the time for suspect/officer motions in engagements.
http://www.forcescience.org/demos/subject/
Note the suspect motion times for drawing and firing weapons are based on students with no prior experience with firearms.
Police do not shoot-look-shoot. That is- they don't shoot, then assess wether they've hit, then shoot again. They are trained to shoot until the threat stops. A hard thing to judge during an engagement. The website also has links to studies showing, with modern semi-automatic pistols, how long it takes to stop firing after the recognition/decision is made.
If you're familiar with OODA loop theory, (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act), it explains why action beats reaction, which always places the police at a disadvantage as they can not complete the OODA loop in time to shoot at a subject prior to the subject firing- if the subject is determined to fire.

I do not know what went on here or how LVPD trains their officers. But it has been shown that officers can fire 1-2 rounds AFTER recognizing the threat has stopped and making the decision to stop firing.

posted by styrgwillidar at September 27, 2010 11:37 AM

---

Well, it is clear that Scott was abusing drugs and that is why he is dead. Not some police conspiracy, not some Costco conspiracy, not some anti-gun conspiracy. He is dead because he mixed drugs and guns. If you are "doubling up" on your prescription drugs for pain, don't carry a gun. And if you do, leave private property when you are asked. And don't point a gun at a police officer.

You should be embarrassed that you think that there is any exculpable testimony in this case. Are all the witnesses with evidence you disagree with under some Sevngali like influence of the police?

And, by the way, what do "character" witnesses have to do with this inquest? They were not present at the Costco and did not see the shooting.

posted by Federale at September 27, 2010 11:56 AM

---

I also like how this went from Scott is a blameless paragon of virtue, West Pointer, soldier and business man to well, even if he was under the influence of drugs, it is the police officers fault anyway.

First you denied he was under the influence of drugs, then claim it has nothing to do with anything.

You are an embarassment to those who are fact based thinkers and who also support the Second Amendment.

Now the Second Amendment is about the right to use drugs and carry weapons.

posted by Federale at September 27, 2010 11:59 AM

---

This story it is great for those that do not need to know the real true.

posted by piese auto at September 27, 2010 01:23 PM

---

It's well established that the police didn't find the second gun he had. It was found by EMS personnel, who showed up once the police decided that maybe they should contact EMS a few minutes after they shot him. It appears the police searched him to the standard they used for everything else in this incident.

http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12785374

"Scott was rushed to a hospital, but died on the way. On the way to the hospital, a second gun was found on Scott."

posted by Kevin at September 27, 2010 01:31 PM

---

1. It is reasonable for the police to disarm an unconscious suspect. It is reasonable to photograph the gun lying on the ground. It is not reasonable to then testify as to how that gun got on the ground other than to say they put it there. We do not know what they testified to or what is in their reports.

2. I call BS on the �lethal dose of drugs� meme being distributed. For his body weight, a lethal dose is lethal. Lethal means he is not able to cavort around COSTCO for several hours. What is lethal to a 95 lb girl is irrelevant. The drugs were prescribed for him. Talk of lethal doses is pure hyperbole. Fact: It isn�t a lethal dose if it doesn�t kill him. Therefore whatever amount he had cansumed was something less than a lethal dose, just like everyone else who takes drugs properly under a doctor's care. I will accept the argument that perhaps he died of gunshot wounds shortly before his painkillers would have killed him anyway.

posted by Professor Hale at September 27, 2010 01:37 PM

---

"No store patrons or employees were hurt [with one notable exception] . Police want to emphasize that they believe no customers were ever in danger by police gunfire [Again, with one notable exception-- further, no other customers or employees were ever in danger from Mr Scott]. Capt. Patrick Neville says the officers who fired used a pillar that holds a canopy as their backdrop."

Must have been a pretty wide pillar to accomodate three officers shooting from close range. Did they decide that ahead of time or was it a fortuitous accident? If planned that way, then this was premeditated murder, with a very narrow window of opportunity. Otherwise the story should be, "we got lucky and the police didn't accidently shoot anyone else nearby".

posted by Professor Hale at September 27, 2010 01:49 PM

---

**As far as I know, no EMT has testified that the took the gun off Mr. Scott, the claim was an internal document from the ambulance crew stated it.**

I know the family Paul; the EMT report hasn't been released. There's more to come.

posted by davis,br at September 27, 2010 01:59 PM

---

...there was no second gun. The introduction of that was to maintain some semblance of cover by the agency, since they, too, know about the EMT report.

posted by davis,br at September 27, 2010 02:02 PM

---

"I also like how this went from Scott is a blameless paragon of virtue, West Pointer, soldier and business man to well, even if he was under the influence of drugs, it is the police officers fault anyway.

"First you denied he was under the influence of drugs, then claim it has nothing to do with anything.

"You are an embarassment to those who are fact based thinkers and who also support the Second Amendment.

"Now the Second Amendment is about the right to use drugs and carry weapons."

While I'm sure that some people are changing their defense of the guy over time, I, for one, am still a bit concerned that Scott was gunned down the way he was. Were the police correct in what they did? From what I've read, I'm inclined to think not. Will they be convicted of anything? Unless I see stronger evidence one way or the other, I'm also inclined to think, likely not.

Does it matter that Scott was drugged up? Probably not, unless it was clearly affecting his behavior. Does it matter that he was living with his girlfriend? To me, I find that behavior to be morally reprehensible, but such behavior has nothing to do with this issue. Yet, others have used this as a justification for the shooting--that is, he basically had it coming.

At the very least, the Las Vegas Police should have some serious soul-searching about what went wrong here...and hopefully, they'll be able to learn from this tragic incident, and prevent others like it from happening.

posted by Alpheus at September 27, 2010 02:56 PM

---

We should hear soon enough how many guns are in the possession of LVPD and if they match the numbers on his permit. Or is the pistol permit office in on the big conspiracy too?

posted by Paul Fels at September 27, 2010 04:14 PM

---

And if the officers missed a second gun, that is poor police work, albeit under a high stress situation.

posted by Paul Fels at September 27, 2010 04:16 PM

---

Sebastian,

"It is unlawful under Nevada Law to carry under the influence:"

Thank you for the cite.

You can understand, based on my years of moderating large internet gun forums, that I have heard people declare authoritatively that it is:

Unlawful to "brandish" (a term that only has legal relevance in very few states. One of which is, unsurprisingly, the NRA's home state of Ol' Virginny...)
Unlawful for your gun to "print"
Unlawful to carry where alcohol is served or sold
Unlawful to carry if you have a beer
Unlawful to... well, you get the picture...

So when I hear somebody declare authoritatively that everybody knows that it is absolutely unlawful to [fill in the blank], I kinda want a cite.

posted by Tam at September 27, 2010 04:51 PM

---

Yes, Thank you very much for the cite, Sebastian. I am IN NEVADA about 70 miles from Las Vegas. I am under the same type of Police Officers as in Las Vegas. I DO feel 'safer' with them and NOT as if I'll be taken advantage of. I have NO DISCOMFORT around them at all. It is my Opinion that if you feel so uncomfortable around Police Officers then you either have done or are thinking of doing something NOT QUITE RIGHT or ILLEGAL. I am 46 years young and have absolutely NO RECORD of any kind. Not even traffic citations or parking tickets. I don't break the law regardless of whether or not I agree with it. Civilians are not lowly but, as is clearly seen amongst the posts here, they don't quite understand some things and therefore make themselves appear more ignorant than they may actually be. **case in point** the actual LAW as to carrying a weapon under the influence.

I feel that it should also to be taken into account that both Erik and his girlfriend flat out lied and said that Erik was a 'Green Beret'. The girlfriend literally stated that he was IN THE ARMY and just got back from Iraq. This is absolute NONSENSE! He'd been discharged from the army since about 1999 and NEVER even came close to a combat situation. He only served 2 years total. Due to this out and out blatant lie NOTHING that this woman says can even be believed at this point. She says that she has known him for 3 years so she had to have known that he had been discharged for ten years.

The distrust of the entire incident is being propagated by both the MEDIA and Erik's father. Erik was under the influence of narcotics, regardless of how much of it was in his system it was very clearly affecting him. (unless you can somehow convince yourself that ALL of the witnesses to his odd behavior and delusional statements were all paid off by the city somehow?) He was also told to GET DOWN. Both witnesses for and against him said this. He was told to 'get down' FIRST before the other statements were made. He should have complied but did not. As to his being shot while down, this is also contradicted in statements as I've read that he was shot twice in the chest but it did not even phase him until the further shots were fired and that is when he began to fold down to the ground. As a matter of FACT the officers DID show restraint as they are taught to 'empty their entire clip' if they fire at somebody. They obviously just 'stopped' him from doing anybody any harm with the gun. Again, all he had to do was REACH FOR THE GUN after being told to GET DOWN and not complying.... this 'conflicting commands' thing is moot. He was told to 'GET DOWN' several times before anything else was yelled out. If he'd have been acting within the law, (being SOBER and not under the influence of narcotics while carrying a weapon) he'd be alive today.

All of these Opinions are based on if the facts as presented are actually TRUE or not. If they are not true than my opinion may differ.

If you're taking drugs DON'T CARRY A WEAPON. PERIOD. No problem. If you are stopped by the Police for ANY REASON (whether or not you've done something wrong) do as they tell you, especially if you are carrying a weapon. Drop your butt to the ground, allow them to disarm you themselves and cuff you. This IS within the law. If you comply and all is in proper order you will be released and your weapon returned to you as soon as it's confirmed. If you feel they've mistreated you in any way than file a complaint against them.

I do my own research so if anyone wants to 'confirm' what I've said about Police Training look it up yourself. I've done my research so it's up to anyone who finds these comments interesting to do their own research.

posted by T at September 27, 2010 08:20 PM

---

T, you are full of baloney. I have closely followed the inquest. I heard every word the medical examiner testified to. Erik was shot seven times; once in the chest, through the heart, once in the upper right thigh, once through the left armpit and directly through the heart and four times in the back. There were two .45 cartridges and five 9mm cartridges found at the scene, according to the lead detective. Also according to the lead detective, two shots by Mosher (as he testified (the chest and thigh shots that entered his body from the front) one by one of the two other officers that fired and four by the other officer. Those five shots were in the back and through Erik's left armpit.

Please don't lie about the evidence in the case. It does a disservice to every reader.

posted by Paul Schmehl at September 27, 2010 10:18 PM

---

Thank you for your insightful and detailed analysis of this tragic incident. I also thank the commenters for taking the time to review and comment on this event. May God bless you all.

posted by DisabledVeteran at September 27, 2010 10:34 PM

---

We should all be looking for the truth. Whether you gyrate your loins and get a warm feeling running down your legs at every sight and mention of a cop ... or, you just hate cops. Doesn't matter.

Maybe Scott deserved getting shot ... although not in the back. Maybe he didn't? If the cops are lying and covering up ... the least we can hope for is that Karma will meet them in the back in a most terrifying way.

posted by C. Cope at September 27, 2010 11:01 PM

---

Actually, Paul Schmehl, I am not lying. YOU SIR should do your homework before replying! As I said in my above post, I am only going on what I have seen written and heard on the media. Here is what I am talking about from the Las Vegas Sun:

"He was a deadly threat with that weapon in his hand," Mosher said.

Mosher said at that point, fearing for his own safety, fearing for the safety of the other officers and fearing for the safety of the crowd, "I fired my weapon at center body mass."

He said he shot twice, then stopped. He said Scott didn't fall immediately. Then he heard the other two officers also shoot."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/erik-scott-day2/

What the coroner has said actually bears out the statements from my previous post as at least 2 of the shots entered from the front of him and that would be Mosher's. Mosher says he fired twice and than heard 'other shots'.

Your statement, "Please don't lie about the evidence in the case. It does a disservice to every reader."

only serves to do YOURSELF a disservice. Please sir, do your RESEARCH before speaking. If you misunderstood what I said than your response is understandable.

posted by T at September 27, 2010 11:11 PM

---

Look, T, you said he was shot twice in the chest and did not fall. Whether you based that on media reports or not, that is false. He was shot once in the chest and once in the thigh. Then, as he was either falling or had already fallen to the ground, according to witnesses, he was shot five more times. The only thing Mosher got right was that he shot twice. One of the five other shots entered Erik's buttocks, passed through his bladder and traveled vertically through his body cavity, coming to rest in the thoracic area. Those are the facts, as testified to by the medical examiner (not the coroner)

If you're going to take Mosher's testimony as fact, you are going to be wrong 95% of the time.

You quote Mosher as saying Erik had a weapon in his hand. He did not. At best he had his HOLSTERED weapon in his hand, and even that is in dispute. Mosher said he fired at center body mass. That may be were he thought he fired, but the evidence proves that is false.

Testimony at the inquest indicates that when Mosher shot Erik, he stepped back and then began falling to the ground. The two other officers then moved in and fired while he was falling to the ground or had already fallen.

If what you write about the case is false, that is called a lie, by definition. Either get the facts or stop posting.

posted by Paul Schmehl at September 27, 2010 11:57 PM

---

On top of everything that has been posted here, I can't imagine a big store like Costco evacuating the store for a man with a gun who is acting normal. It just doesn't make sense. They could have called the police and had the police arrest him inside for trespassing - and all those customers could have kept on shopping and spending money.

posted by Vanya at September 28, 2010 05:27 AM

---

When several police officers confront an armed man, they don't all line up right in front of him, just so the bullets don't hit him in the back. Shooters in the past have soaked up more rounds than hit Mr. Scott, then killed officers, as in the Miami Massacre

This is not a video game, people....

posted by Paul Fels at September 28, 2010 09:57 AM

---

T, you stated
"As a matter of FACT the officers DID show restraint as they are taught to 'empty their entire clip' if they fire at somebody."

I know officers from 4 southern CA police departments and 3 federal agencies. None are taught to 'empty the clip', all are trained to 'fire until the threat stops'.

Could you please provide a citation or link to a Police department supporting your statement, that they train officers to 'empty their entire clip'?

posted by styrgwillidar at September 28, 2010 03:58 PM

---

the family needs to own up and realize there son was an addict!!(wish i was his dealer)that had no reason for being out and about.. hes under the influence of pills or anything for that reason he should of never been carrying his gun oh i mean guns which through out his ccw permit rights with it. the family should be thanking metro they didnt shoot him more and can have an open casket!!pretty sad a guy with all his great training could seem to understand anything like get down get down but the 40 or so other people did.. lets hurry up and get these cops back to what they do best before another Erik scott comes out of the woodworks. you people need to stop relying on news or this jackoffs page for info just watch it @fox5vegas live and see for your self what all the non employees are saying>>>from the sounds of half of these post they dont belive anything not even when the defence of homeland security cop testified he saw everything and had no choice he pointed the gun at the police .. pretty simple people youi pont a gun at cop and you should be shot not tazered like all the idiots have been saying thats like bringing a knife to a gun fight

posted by jack mehoff at September 28, 2010 04:59 PM

---

As a matter of FACT the officers DID show restraint as they are taught to 'empty their entire clip' if they fire at somebody.

If that is how they are trained, then they are trained to act negligently and criminally.

Lethal force is legally employed to stop a threat. Continuing to fire when there is no threat because you still have ammunition in the magazine is murder.

Justifiable homicide by a police officer in Nevada is:

NRS 200.140 Justifiable homicide by public officer. Homicide is justifiable when committed by a public officer, or person acting under the command and in the aid of the public officer, in the following cases:

1. In obedience to the judgment of a competent court.

2. When necessary to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

3. When necessary:

(a) In retaking an escaped or rescued prisoner who has been committed, arrested for, or convicted of a felony;

(b) In attempting, by lawful ways or means, to apprehend or arrest a person; or

(c) In lawfully suppressing a riot or preserving the peace.

The statute limitig lethal force in making an arrest in Nevada (as opposed to, say, execution, like in 1. above) is:

NRS 171.1455 Use of deadly force to effect arrest: Limitations. If necessary to prevent escape, an officer may, after giving a warning, if feasible, use deadly force to effect the arrest of a person only if there is probable cause to believe that the person: 1. Has committed a felony which involves the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm or the use of deadly force; or 2. Poses a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or to others.

Once a suspect no longer poses a threat to the officer or others, lethal force is no longer authorized, and using it is therefore murder or manslaughter(depending on malice aforethought, actual or implied.)

posted by Phelps at September 28, 2010 06:57 PM

---

I stand corrected on the misquote of the LAW as I was going on what my husband had said and I misunderstood him. 'fire until the threat stops' is CORRECT and I was mistaken and I apologize. It was not intentional. His stipulation was that if the perpetrator does not go down than you continue to fire UNTIL he goes down and this is to include emptying your clip. As to Paul Schmehl's comments, AGAIN, I am only going on what the media has said that Mosher said and that is what was posted above. Did you, Mr. Schmehl or did you NOT read the link I provided in my post? AGAIN, this is what was attributed to Mosher's statements. It clearly states that Mosher indicated that:

"He said he shot twice, then stopped. He said Scott didn't fall immediately. Then he heard the other two officers also shoot."

This statement, that he DID NOT FALL right away, was the MAIN STIPULATION of the original comments and they regarded the 'reasoning' behind further shots being fired. This statement was printed in the Las Vegas Sun newspaper and I have provided you the link for that. The fact that he was shot in the chest and 'thigh' has little bearing on the issue at hand. BOTH of these shots were to the front of his body. You have very clearly missed the point I was making. Just because you feel Mosher is lying (it seems that you see liars everywhere since I'm obviously one too!!) does not make this statement any less than what it is. It had nothing to do with the actual locations that the rounds penetrated the front of his body and everything to do with the 'reasoning' for further shots being fired.

I clearly stated in all of my posts that I was going on what I had READ and, therefore, I AM NOT A LIAR and if I make a mistake I own up to it.

Jack Mehoff seems to be one with the least proclivity of anal retentiveness here. His statements make much more sense and are stated bluntly and without condescending remarks of suggested prevarication. Thanks Jack for the breath of fresh air!

posted by T at September 28, 2010 08:55 PM

---

Moncler homme
Moncler Vestes
Moncler femme
Veste Blouson
Doudoune Moncler

Omega Watches
IWC Watches
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel bags 2010
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel bags 2010

Moncler V��tements
Blousons Moncler 2010
Moncler Vestes
Veste Blouson
Doudoune Moncler

channel bags 2010
Chanel Purses

Aigner Watches
Breguet Watches
best sports watch
best watch
the best watch Replica watch
Concord watches
white gold watches
mens gold watches

Christian Louboutin Shoes
Christian Louboutin Boots
Christian Louboutin Pumps
Christian Louboutin Sandals
Christian Louboutin Slingback

Christian Louboutin 2010
Jimmy Choo Shoes
fashion shopping
Manolo Blahnik Shoes
Yves Saint Laurent Shoes
Christian Louboutin News

posted by rewrwe at October 5, 2010 11:21 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/

Seems as if many here are not willing to give Law Enforcement the benefit of the doubt until the inquest is over. This saddens me as a Police Officer and retired Marine.

posted by YatYas at September 24, 2010 10:01 PM

---

Boycott Costco...
When I was young there were no reports of overreaction by law enforcement like there are today, so I suppose that the level of scepticism is high, and note the number of comments are very low in this series of threads.
If law enforcement has succeded in intimidating the general public to the point that none dare confront them politicaly or openly......that is very bad for a Democracy. Very bad.
It may also explain the difficulty in getting proper raises from politicians.

posted by Ron at September 25, 2010 12:57 AM

---

"Seems as if many here are not willing to give Law Enforcement the benefit of the doubt until the inquest is over. This saddens me as a Police Officer and retired Marine."

Tango Sierra. Too many LEOs get away with antics that would land "civilians" in prison for 5-10. You want the benefit of the doubt, you need to earn it.

posted by Cobalt Shiva at September 25, 2010 02:16 PM

---

When I was a LEO, we expected to be held to a higher standard than the general public. Mr. Scott is dead because the store reported him in violation of an unpublished policy. By all accounts, the Vegas police sent a group of officers who surrounded Mr. Scott shouting conflicting orders then fired when Mr. Scott started to comply with one of the three orders. If Mr. Scott made any mistake, it was moving before the panic died down. The disappearance of the store videos and the dispatcher's tape has all the appearance of a cover-up. This will do nothing to protect the 3 officers, their department or the city. I realise I am judging after the fact but there is no excuse for Mr. Scott's death. It appears the officers did not know the law they were sworn to uphold, reacted in a hysterical and unorganized fashion, killed someone complying with their conflicting requests and are now attempting to hide their inadequacies. I'd say these officers are in deep trouble as is anyone attempting to cover this up.

posted by Jerry in Detroit at September 25, 2010 11:13 PM

---

Seems as if many here are not willing to give Law Enforcement the benefit of the doubt until the inquest is over. This saddens me as a Police Officer and retired Marine.

It saddens me as a citizen, as well. Not because I think there is any rational reason to give them the benefit of doubt, but because I think that this situation has been well and truly earned by the few bad apple cops in this country, and by the masses of "good" cops who look the other way, day after day.

posted by Phelps at September 26, 2010 12:02 PM

---

Thank you for following this and for sharing the statement on one of Erik Scott's competitors. Very insightful.

posted by DisabledVeteran at September 29, 2010 08:05 AM

---

YatYas, thank you for your service in our military and as a police officer. Most of us know many great people who are law enforcement officers, just as many of us know many great people who are teachers, politicians, lawyers, bankers, parents, mechanics, farmers, etc. Many of us have friends and relatives in law enforcement. But we are all human beings who sometimes make mistakes and sometimes, given the right circumstances, can do things that are not ideal. Many law enforcement agencies have avoided the problems that seem to plague Las Vegas. Where I live, the law enforcement agencies do a great job on both protecting the public and policing their own ranks. They seem to take care of errant officers before the public is even aware of it. Law enforcement officers are held to a very high standard of conduct. They also seem to have a higher level of training than Nevada. Nothing like what has been occuring in Las Vegas has happened where I live. It is unheard of. Perhaps the officers were only doing what they were trained to do. But perhaps Las Vegas needs to take a step backwards and ask, "Can we learn anything from this?" I feel very sorry for Erik, the Scott family and friends, and the officers. But God can sometimes use tragedies like this to open eyes to prevent something even worse.

posted by ConcernedCitizen at September 29, 2010 08:18 AM

---

Moncler homme
Moncler Vestes
Moncler femme
Veste Blouson
Doudoune Moncler

Omega Watches
IWC Watches
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel bags 2010
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel bags 2010

Moncler V��tements
Blousons Moncler 2010
Moncler Vestes
Veste Blouson
Doudoune Moncler

channel bags 2010
Chanel Purses

Aigner Watches
Breguet Watches
best sports watch
best watch
the best watch Replica watch
Concord watches
white gold watches
mens gold watches

Christian Louboutin Shoes
Christian Louboutin Boots
Christian Louboutin Pumps
Christian Louboutin Sandals
Christian Louboutin Slingback

Christian Louboutin 2010
Jimmy Choo Shoes
fashion shopping
Manolo Blahnik Shoes
Yves Saint Laurent Shoes
Christian Louboutin News

posted by rewrwe at October 5, 2010 11:08 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:23 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Save your anger for November 2, 3, 4 and 5 when it becomes clear the ratbags have committed widespread vote fraud.

www.wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/

posted by Davod` at September 24, 2010 06:55 PM

---

We ceased being a nation of laws on January 20, 2009.

Davod, you are sooooo right. It will make Bush v. Gore look like a Sunday walk in the park.

posted by mixitup at September 24, 2010 08:26 PM

---

So now the cat is out of the bag ...
The next time Republicans need to suppress a bunch of white liberal voters, they just hire a bunch of Blacks to go over an harass them .. the DOJ won't protect their sorry asses.
Republican wins .. Black unemployment goes down .. a win-win.

posted by Neo at September 24, 2010 11:09 PM

---

Who in the hell is actually surprised at this? Does the term "afirmative action" ring any bells? What in the hell IS aa if not discrimination?

posted by emdfl at September 25, 2010 12:00 AM

---

Of course, as any liberal will tell you, persons of color cannot be racists, even if their actions are demonstratably so. We payed a lot of money at espensive Eastern upper class universities, so it must be so.

posted by garrettc at September 27, 2010 01:30 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:23 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

The important thing is that no one notices Coates' testimony.

-Bri

posted by Bri at September 24, 2010 05:00 PM

---

Lofgren should have worn a red rubber ball on her nose and a pointy hat during the hearing. She is emblematic of the farce that the Democratic Party has become.

posted by Ken Hahn at September 24, 2010 05:05 PM

---

Maher, Colbert, Franken, Stewart: DEMOCRATICS, THE PARTY OF COMEDY.
But Bri is correct. While Colbert was smearing the Dems with shxx, Coates was offering testimony that the Obama "Justice" Dept. is officially raaacisst against white people. Coates testimony dumped a whole truckload of shxx on Obama's head and all over his black suit.

posted by Fred Beloit at September 25, 2010 09:53 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:24 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Welcome back and glad to hear things are going well. Missed checking in while you were on hiatus.

posted by dejapa at September 23, 2010 07:57 PM

---

Amen. That is exactly my reaction to it.

In other words: show me the money.

posted by ECM at September 23, 2010 08:37 PM

---

How can they prove themselves unless we elect them?

posted by Steve in TN at September 24, 2010 12:59 AM

---

"It sure it is faithfully edited..."

Unlike this document :) Just messing with ya.

posted by Kevin at September 25, 2010 04:01 AM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:23 PM

---

� Hide Comments

Mr. Obama is well on his way to completing a Democratic hat trick of economic and foreign policy wreckage begun and carried out under the previous Democratic presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. But perhaps it would be useful to provide a brief reminder of the previous Democratic shots on goal of American financial stability and national security before updating Mr. Obama�s skills on the ice as America's economy goes into sudden death overtime.

Under Jimmy Carter, America engaged in feckless international moralizing to the detriment of American security and prestige. Recall, if you will, Mr. Carter�s gob smacked amazement at the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and his subsequent public admission that he finally began to realize that maybe the Soviet Union really wasn�t interested in buying the world a Coke and teaching it to sing in perfect harmony. And who can forget those halcyon days of 20% interest rates, runaway inflation and endless lines at the gas pumps where a few gallons of gas may or may not have been available? And who was not moved to tears when Mr. Carter sacrificed by turning down the White House thermostat and wearing a Mr. Rogers cardigan sweater as he brilliantly summed up all of American�s problems while simultaneously solving them with the penetrating insight that America was suffering from �malaise,� or was it mayonnaise? I forget; I�m still recovering from being penetrated by the insight.

But Mr. Carter�s greatest achievement was, without question, reawakening the global jihad, while simultaneously failing to recognize or do anything about it, by whacking our long time ally, the Shah of Iran, with the moral superiority stick, thus allowing the Islamic Revolution in Iran that resulted in the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Expert opinion is still out on whether that event, or the creation of ABC�s Nightline hosted by Ted Koppel was the more damaging calamity. But what is known is that after more than a year of outreach, understanding and moralizing, the Iranians released the hostages on the very day that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, and to the Iranians, seemed likely to continue Mr. Carter�s outreach by turning Iran into a glowing, steaming sheet of radioactive glass. This, finally, was outreach the Islamists could appreciate.

Thereafter, Americans learning that Mr. Carter made history as the only American President who served as a naval officer ever to be attacked while in his rowboat by a swimming rabbit, who may or may not have been a jihadist, were commonly heard to swear under their respective breaths and mutter, �sounds about right.� The Islamists, rabbits or not, did not forget, and having declared war on infidels and the Great Satan (that�s us, folks), set to work, never losing sight of their ultimate, long term goal of world domination.

After the horror of the Reagan and Bush years of American prestige, prosperity and genuine, as opposed to sloganeering, progress America was rescued, just in time to enjoy the benefits of the collapse of the Soviet Union, by the election of Bubbas Maximus, President Bill Clinton. Who can forget his many accomplishments, some made while actually wearing pants and/or with a zipped fly? Recall his televised address where he, with the most genuine faked sincerity, and the most emphatic finger wagging, delivered by an American President to that point in history, declared that he did not have sexual relations, with that woman�Miss Lewinsky? Of course, that depended on what the definitions of did, not, have, sexual, relations, with, that, woman, ellipsis, Miss and Lewinsky were. Linguists are still wrestling with the implications after all these years.

Mr. Clinton empowered our military and intelligence agencies by reinventing government. Of course, that reinvention consisted mainly of stealing their funds and mothballing assets, but hey, you have to break a few eggs to know what the meaning of �is� is. He really helped the CIA by, in an act of moral clarity not seen since Jimmy Carter took the moral superiority stick to the Shah, prohibiting CIA agents from dealing with anyone with a criminal record. Apparently Mr. Clinton had been informed by Democratic operatives that intelligence information could be best gathered by employing as intelligence assets nuns who are, after all, know for their close associations with terrorists and spies. Remember the inspired mirth of Mr. Clinton�s refusal to ever hold a one on one meeting with the Director of the CIA he appointed? And who didn�t double over with laughter when an attention seeking dullard--no, no, not Al Gore�crashed a small plane on the White House lawn spawning the joke that its pilot was the CIA Director trying to get a meeting with Mr. Clinton!

Mr. Clinton�s faux fondness for the military and his unswerving lack of attention to his duty as Commander in Chief was best chronicled by Lt. Colonel Buzz Patterson (USAF Ret.) who carried the nuclear football for Mr. Clinton in his books "Dereliction of Duty" and "Reckless Disregard," which titles do not refer to Mr. Clinton�s failure to pursue sexual adventures in or out of the White House, or under his desk, for that matter.

Who does not look back in fondness on Mr. Clinton�s establishing the precedent of treating Islamic terrorism, including the first World Trade Center bombing, as a criminal matter? Who cannot fail to chuckle at the loveable rogue�s serial refusals to take Osama Bin Ladin into custody when Bin Ladin was offered to him on a silver platter by foreign governments? Impeachment, perjury, sexual harassment and rape allegations were only a few of Mr. Clinton�s many, notable domestic accomplishments. And who can forget that immortal headline in "The Onion": �President Clinton to Feel Nation�s Pain, Breasts�?

Thereafter, Americans learning that Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton, upon leaving the White House, looted many of the furnishings (that is, the few remaining furnishings that weren't reduced to rubble by one of Mrs. Clinton�s many obscenity laced, paint peeling, chuck-everything-that-isn�t-nailed-down-at-the-President domestic outreach sessions), were commonly heard to swear under their respective breaths and mutter, �sounds about right.� The Islamists remained determined to dominate the world, responding to eight more years of Democratic outreach with their traditional, cheery greeting and salutation of: �Death to America!�

So great was the domestic and foreign policy success of Jimmy Carter (who has never ceased to miss an opportunity to remind Americans of just how magnificent he was and is while simultaneously actively working against American interests and the interests of our allies) and so darned loveable and roguish was the loveable roguishness of Bill Clinton that America had little choice but to elect another Democrat, in this case, the single most leftist Democratic Senator the republic had ever survived, on the platform of �hope� and �change� and raising the seas and healing Al Gore, or something.

Mr. Obama�s dedication to relentlessly clinging to every catastrophically destructive Democrat domestic and foreign policy ever imagined in the most fevered socialist brain seemed positively pedestrian in comparison to Mr. Woodward�s initial recitation of Mr. Obama�s priorities. Oh sure, we know that he considers NASA�s most important mission to be helping Muslims feel good about their scientific accomplishments, you know, like, centuries ago? Of course, we pretty much have to scrap the space program to provide the funds for this vital endeavor, but that's hope and change for you! We also know that when Iran responds to his outstretched hands with their traditional, heart warming �death to America!� Mr. Obama is only more determined to destroy America�s economy and to figure out how more effectively to avoid calling Islamic Terrorists Islamic Terrorists.

But who, pray tell, would even think, let alone say, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger,"? By that sort of logic, why should we bother to try to prevent the next attack, or even the next several? After all, would those attacks not make us stronger still? That a President of the United States actually believes this, and actually thought nothing of saying it to a reporter, should shake every American who actually believes in America, democracy and the survival of America and western civilization to their bones. Better still, it should motivate them, at every election up to and including 2012, to finally, once and for all, understand that Democrats cannot be trusted with the economy or national security (to name only two), and to vote for any Republican candidate, even a ham sandwich providing it's a Republican, or at least, not a Democrat.

One wonders what the survivors of the victims of 9-11 think of absorbing another 9-11? One wonders what the victims of those future attacks might think, or Americans who might very well become those victims, which would be potentially all of us. One wonders if Americans who learn that some 800 Americans were killed around the world by Islamists after the Iranian Hostage Crisis and before 9-11 would be surprised, so greatly have our Democrat Presidents lowered our expectations of presidential leadership and morality, particularly that of Democrats. One wonders what more we�ll learn about Mr. Obama�s actions and core beliefs, including his despicably political approach to war and our military already hinted at in the excerpts from Woodward�s book when it is released and read in its entirety? I suspect that Americans will be commonly heard to swear under their respective breaths and mutter, �sounds about right.� A hat trick indeed.

� Hide "The Hat Trick: How To Outreach America to Death"

---

We'll do fine as long as the terrorists take out the White House. We can rebuild the building. Oh, and we don't need the occupants.

posted by Bill Johnson at September 23, 2010 10:12 AM

---

Woodward became the wonderboy jounalist how?

posted by bman at September 23, 2010 12:01 PM

---

I'm going to apply the left's standard for evaluating Woodward's take on Bush and believe everything he says in his book.

posted by ECM at September 23, 2010 05:59 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:23 PM

---

� Hide Comments

I am no more reflexively pro-police than I am anti-police. I am certainly, as a citizen, against official corruption of any kind. As a former police officer, I am more aware than most of the factors that might tend to corrupt individual officers and police organizations. The police are handicapped in that they are restricted to recruiting solely from the human race. As in all human endeavors, most cops are average, some are below average and some few are excellent. Most officers and agencies are honest and dedicated, taking seriously their oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution. Some, unfortunately, are not and do not. I have no first hand knowledge of the police of Las Vegas or their agency and its leadership. I just don�t know whether it�s an honest or corrupt organization or some mixture of the two. However, I, and others can draw reasonable inferences and conclusions about it from its observed behavior and actions while being always willing to be persuaded by additional facts.

It�s important to understand that line officers and administrative officers are often from two different planets. For working cops, most of the stress of the job doesn�t come from working with the public, but from working with other cops, particularly administrators. In competent, professional agencies, everyone works together as a team. In dysfunctional, corrupt agencies, paranoia and anger reign as everyone is locked in a constant struggle for favor, power and dominance. In such agencies, particularly in large cities, administrators tend to be hired for their political views and loyalties to elected officials rather than for their competence and loyalty to the Constitution and equal enforcement of the law.

It�s also important to keep in mind that in dysfunctional agencies, the worst traits of human nature, those formally and informally suppressed in competent agencies, tend to be manifested at every level. Among these are the tendencies to see life through an �us against them� lens, and to abuse power. The reality is that unless one is a police officer, it�s almost impossible to understand the pressures, professional and social, of the job. It�s not the kind of job that can be left at the office, ever. These pressures do tend to isolate cops from the general public. Good cops handle this rationally and calmly and don�t tend to view the public as the enemy while simultaneously understanding that there are inherent social issues. They also wield their authority, which is considerable, with restraint and humility. It may surprise many to learn that one of the hardest things for many new officers to learn is how to accept and properly use the inherent authority of their position. Most are not power hungry monsters dying to abuse the public and don�t yearn to misuse their authority.

No officer in a competent police agency wants to be involved in a shooting. Yes, it�s human nature to seek excitement, and many cops will admit to being adrenaline junkies, but they understand that the consequences of a shooting, no matter how legitimate, are severe and last a lifetime. They expect that they will be treated as criminal suspects�they do not for a moment expect that anyone will cover for their mistakes--and that even if a shooting is completely justified and no criminal charges result, they will almost certainly be sued by survivors of the victim who will be portrayed as a saint regardless of their actual background. Any officer who indicates a desire to get into shooting situations is a real concern for and danger toward honest, professional cops.

In dysfunctional agencies, it�s quite the opposite situation. Petty local politics can have an enormous effect on law enforcement. There are classes of local citizens who are essentially immune to arrest. Administrators tend to see officers as barely sentient troublemakers who must be tightly controlled to avoid mistakes. Officers resent the lack of trust and respect and are constantly, and wisely, looking over their shoulders. Weak people with few or no leadership skills and faulty knowledge and experience are appointed as supervisors because they are easy to control. Officers know that when someone complains about them�common no matter how good an officer is�they cannot know in advance if they�ll be fairly and professionally treated or thrown under the public relations bus. Does this sound like many dysfunctional workplaces? It should, but when you�re in a business that actually deals in life and death decisions on a daily basis, it�s rather more serious. Even in dysfunctional agencies, corrupt cops can never be entirely sure that their superiors won�t turn on them any second.

Regarding firearms, most working officers fully support the Second Amendment and have no difficulty with citizens carrying concealed weapons. Every competent officer understands that anyone they meet could be carrying a concealed firearm and acts accordingly, with reasonable caution appropriate to each situation. Police administrators, particularly those of large, urban agencies, tend to have exactly the opposite viewpoint. Some would be very happy to disarm the entire population if they could get away with it.

The fact that working police officers almost uniformly support civilian concealed carry, and deal with that issue�without violence--every day, makes the behavior of the Las Vegas Police even more puzzling. We still have no idea of the content of the 9-11 call that forged the first link of the chain that led to Erik Scott�s death, but for officers to act as they did, there are two primary possibilities: (1) They were acting under the impression that Scott was ready to start shooting any and everyone at any second, or (2) They were not in control of themselves and their weapons due to poor training, panic, malice, inexperience, or any combination of these and other factors. The possibility that Scott was a hair-trigger, raging bad guy who not only drew his weapon but pointed it at the police as police spokesmen have claimed cannot be absolutely discounted, but considering what is known at the moment, seems unlikely.

A number of those making comments have expressed concern about the taking of video resources from Costco. Implicit in some of their concerns is the idea that Costco should have adopted an adversarial stance with the police and required them to obtain a warrant. All issues relating to search and seizure of private property are governed by the 4th Amendment, which is explicit in the requirements for warrants, but which does not require a warrant for every search and seizure. This follows from the idea that individuals are protected from �unreasonable� searches and seizures and that there is, therefore, a class of searches which are inherently reasonable and do not require a warrant.

It should be kept in mind that Costco could have, if it wished, refused to turn over any recordings or devices. At that point, the police would have had two options: (1) Seize the recordings and devices anyway under an exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, or (2) Obtain a warrant. In order to pursue option one, the police would have to be able to show that unless they seized the materials immediately, there was a substantial risk that the evidence would be altered or destroyed. If one assumes that the officers in this case are acting to cover up criminal negligence, they would surely seize first and apologize later. A warrant in this case would surely have been issued by any judge and if the police had a legitimate fear of tampering while the warrant was being obtained, could have posted officers (a common practice)�it appears that there were more than enough present�to prevent such tampering until the warrant arrived, a process that would be expected to take an hour or less. However, most businesses want a good relationship with the police whether they consider the police to be corrupt or not as the police provide several valuable services for them. Costco likely did not think of objecting to the taking of the materials. If the police ask (I�m assuming they did) and the citizen agrees, no warrant is required. One can legitimately argue that Costco was acting against its own interests in willingly surrendering the materials, but in this case, the end result was a foregone conclusion and resisting would have only slightly delayed the seizure.

The issue is slightly more interesting in the case of a citizen who might have recorded events on a cell phone or video camera. The police would be able to argue with somewhat more plausibility that a citizen unknown to them, as opposed to long established business, would be more likely to damage or destroy evidence, and the same processes of seizing the materials would apply. Might a citizen make copies, post them on the Internet, even send them to their lawyers for safekeeping before turning video over to the police? Certainly, unless there is some specific statute that would address the issue, but that�s quite uncommon.

If police video cameras recorded the events, things become really interesting. If such video exists it has certainly been examined by the police in minute detail. However, absent specific court orders to produce such video, whether its existence is ever acknowledged is an open question. If one assumes that the police in this instance are carrying out a cover up, such video would only be acknowledged and made available if it unambiguously supported the police version of events. Suppressing even the knowledge of such video would in the very least constitute contempt of court, and probably, a crime in most states.

Another concern related to the officers shouting commands at Scott, and suggested that their commands were not intended to resolve the situation peacefully, but to confuse witnesses into supporting the police version of events.
There is a shred of truth in this idea, but not in the manner implied. Competent training in this facet of police work requires that one officer, and one alone, issue commands, and that the most effective command when the suspect is initially confronted is �don�t move.� Officers are told to do this loudly, clearly, and slowly giving the suspect sufficient time (which can be seconds) to process the command, if safety allows. This is done to control the situation and to minimize mistakes. Every officer understands that the clearer and more simple their commands and actions, the more likely witnesses are to correctly remember, and if the officers act professionally, this will benefit everyone. I need not mention that some officers are not professional and that some act in bad faith, cynically playing for onlookers the better to cover their malfeasance. I have to believe that readers can understand that the potential for bad, malicious behavior is present in any human endeavor, so I need not repeatedly offer it as a disclaimer. Based on many years of experience in similar situations, my best take on what actually happened is that three or more officers were likely so adrenaline fueled that they began yelling whatever came to mind and likely weren�t aware of what their fellow officers were yelling, if they heard anything other than their own voices at all. In these circumstances, I�ve seen officer�s voices raise an octave or two as they screamed mindless obscenities rather than rational commands at a suspect.

Yet another concern revolved around the police practice of handcuffing suspects they�ve just shot as soon as possible and leaving them restrained until, and possibly even after, it�s safe for medical care. Some were also concerned that the police apparently did not themselves try to treat Scott. Unless an officer is a certified EMT or paramedic, few if any police agencies will allow them to engage in medical treatment, particularly if other medical professionals are on the scene. This doesn�t mean that an officer would be required to withhold direct pressure to a badly bleeding wound or refuse to provide CPR, for example, but if an officer is providing medical treatment, he is not fulfilling his primary duties. It is also essential that suspects be restrained, even if they are not an immediately apparent threat. Human beings are amazingly resilient, and someone who appears unconscious one moment, may suddenly leap to their feet and inflict great harm on officers or medical personnel, even when mortally wounded. This does seem cold hearted, but to those who, like the Shadow, know what evil lurks in the hearts of men, and who have learned that lesson the hard way, it�s rational and necessary. If the police abuse this procedure, if they inflict unnecessary pain or unnecessarily delay medical treatment, they are reprehensible and criminally liable, but that does not invalidate the necessity or wisdom of this policy.

On the new development front, Scott�s father has posted extensively (http://erikbscottmemorialblog.blogspot.com/) on the drugs that would likely be found in Erik�s system. That any drugs at all were present will tend to be supportive of the police version of events, and will certainly be played that way by the police, and possibly some elements of the Las Vegas press. William B. Scott�s account indicates that Erik Scott suffered from spinal damage likely incurred during airborne training, which is certainly plausible, and that he was under treatment for intractable pain. As a younger man, I sometimes scoffed at those who suffered from debilitating neck and back injuries until, that is, I suffered a neck injury on the job. I scoff no longer as each turn of my head feel and sounds like a bag full of gravel. William Scott also suggests that the medications Erik was taking were all obtained by legitimate prescriptions. These assertions are easily proved or disproved through the testimony of his attending physicians. Whether the police rely on such direct, legitimate testimony or produce spin doctors, so to speak, to paint a differing picture may also help to clarify police intentions. The Coroner�s inquest is scheduled for this week in Las Vegas, and I�ll update what I can after that event, if it occurs.

Some have suggested that the police acted with malice aforethought, in other words, planned Scott�s killing before it occurred. I�ve suggested that the most serious charge might be manslaughter, which does not require such a demanding standard of proof. While it�s true that premeditation may be formulated in seconds before a criminal act, with what is known at the moment, it seems that the police may have acted negligently, but not with premeditated malice as specified in the language of most statutes, which would be necessary for a murder conviction in most jurisdictions. As the information available in this case currently stands, it remains most likely that this is a classic case of one error or misunderstanding after another building inexorably to an avoidable death.

� Hide "The Erik Scott Shooting: Update 2"

---

"The issue is slightly more interesting in the case of a ***citizen who might have recorded events on a cell phone or video camera.*** The police would be able to argue with somewhat more plausibility that a citizen unknown to them, as opposed to long established business, would be more likely to damage or destroy evidence, and the same processes of seizing the materials would apply. Might a citizen make copies, post them on the Internet, even send them to their lawyers for safekeeping before turning video over to the police? Certainly, unless there is some specific statute that would address the issue, but that�s quite uncommon."

I'm not following you. Are you saying it is legal/appropriate for police to confiscate the cell phone videos of citizens who may have recorded this shooting? Or is it iffy?

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to flame you or anyone. I commented earlier in the first thread that I was pretty sure that the police didn't need a warrant to confiscate witnesses cell phones. I would guess because they are evidence or something.

If you can clairify this, it would be appreciated.

And if there is a lot of variation between different states and jurisdictions about this, OK, I can understand that.

posted by ed at September 23, 2010 02:01 AM

---

While I always try and keep a wait and see attitude, I appreciate your continued well balanced comments on this LEO involved shooting. Your obvious knowledge of the potential back-story is most enlightening. Please continue to cover the emerging data / facts / spin.

posted by Del at September 23, 2010 06:27 AM

---

Dear ed:

Sorry if I was less than clear. According to the 4th Amendment, the police can seize just about any private property upon a showing that they have probable cause to believe that it's evidence of a crime and they must, on a warrant, particularly describe the items to be seized and places to be searched. Again, not all searches and seizures require a warrant, particularly those under emergency circumstances. In other words, if the police don't act immediately, without a warrant, the evidence almost certainly will be, as opposed to might be, lost.

Of course, if the police don't know about a citizen recorded video, then the matter is up to the citizen's conscience. I hope this helps.

posted by mikemcdaniel at September 23, 2010 08:23 AM

---

"It should be kept in mind that Costco could have, if it wished, refused to turn over any recordings or devices. At that point, the police would have had two options: (1) Seize the recordings and devices anyway under an exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, or (2) Obtain a warrant."

Or NOT SEIZE IT AT ALL but ask politely for a copy like normal people! Good God are you really this incredibly benightedly stupid? You think you're defending cops? With every word you make yourself look worse!

posted by Rollory at September 23, 2010 08:44 AM

---

I think a lot of clarity would be achieved if the tapes from the CostCo 911 call were released. It would establish what the officers thought they were facing. If the caller said "we have a man with a gun" is quite different than "THERE"S A NUT WITH A GUN IN THE STORE!"

posted by Quilly Mammoth at September 23, 2010 08:51 AM

---

I think the police will find that they will increasingly have trouble "seizing" information that is digital. Already there are iPhone apps that stream video live to a server and distribute feeds via twitter immediately to friends so it can't be easily confiscated.

posted by steve h at September 23, 2010 08:57 AM

---

I seems to me, given the current state of the story that the first shot was most likely a mistake and the rest of the shots to Scotts back were most likely the result of poorly trained officers overreacting to the first shot ...
Once the facts all come to light, besides the officers involved any other police official who lied to the public should be punished to the full extend to the criminal justice system and anyone who made misleading statements should be fired ...

posted by Jeff at September 23, 2010 09:28 AM

---

@Rollory

"However, most businesses want a good relationship with the police whether they consider the police to be corrupt or not as the police provide several valuable services for them. Costco likely did not think of objecting to the taking of the materials. If the police ask (I�m assuming they did) and the citizen agrees, no warrant is required."(emphasis added)

Rollory, you really ought to start reading these posts before you start shrieking insults. As with the prior post all you're doing now is letting everyone know that you're ignorant and only casually acquainted (at best) with logic

posted by James Felix at September 23, 2010 09:37 AM

---

I appreciate your expertise and continuing perspectives on this case VERY much.

One disagreement. It's been my experience with the Police Culture that an officer is not really considered an REAL officer unless he has fired his weapon and killed a criminal. Note the whole subset of human beings referred to as "bad guys" when you are listening to LEOs talk. "Bad guy"s can have anything done to them and are without civil rights or humanity. Also notice the epidemic of dog shootings nationwide by LEOs, often without cause or provocation. Police officers MUST make their bones.
I think the belief that unless you have blooded your weapon you aren't a real veteran LEO is nationwide and a factor in this killing in LV.

posted by Robert at September 23, 2010 09:38 AM

---

Hey Mike,

Your clarification for ed seems less clear to me.

Are the police acting within the law by confiscating cell phone recordings by witnesses to the shooting?

Can the citizen legally refuse?

-----

Quilly,

I believe a copy of the video would be viewed as potentially tampered evidence--they need the original for court.

BTW, did MikeM shoot your dog? Where did you sign up for the I Hate MikeM club?

posted by mockmook at September 23, 2010 09:39 AM

---

Sorry Quilly, I meant might response for Rollory.

posted by mockmook at September 23, 2010 09:43 AM

---

I appreciate your perspective on what should be done by a well trained member of the police. I believe, though, that the whole point is that LV does not have a well trained PD. The fact that a man with a holstered weapon (which no one seems to be challenging) is dead seems to indicate that these officers were poorly trained. As in most cases like this, it ultimately comes down to a leadership problem; hence the attempt at a cover-up.

posted by charles at September 23, 2010 09:54 AM

---

"...many cops will admit to being adrenaline junkies..."

This is the key phrase. When adrenaline junkies are combined with a culture that encourages a siege mentality and discourages accountability bad things will happen.

It's not bad apples, it's the orchards.

posted by Jeff at September 23, 2010 09:59 AM

---

'Regarding firearms, most working officers fully support the Second Amendment and have no difficulty with citizens carrying concealed weapons.'

not in my personal experience and not in the experience of Pete Eyre and other activists. in fact, I'd argue that cc makes cops feel that they must be more aggressive toward citizens because 'anyone could be carrying'. I've been a firefighter/medic for over 20 years and have been on over 15,000 911 calls... I've never heard a cop voice support for an armed public.

there are lots of videos showing cops acting against people with concealed carry and exercising their rights to open carry.

posted by Marty at September 23, 2010 10:02 AM

---

IT's just somehow wrong for one of the parties in an investigation of this serious a nature to have possession of all the evidence. Evidence fro Costco recordings, 911 center recordings and any dashcam vodeos should all be placed in the hands of a disinterested third party.

But it's too late for that. So who can trust what that one party says? How can this be anything but lose-lose for the po-po? Well, they have guns...that's how.

posted by Bill Johnson at September 23, 2010 10:07 AM

---

Rollory stated re. the CCTV seizure "Or NOT SEIZE IT AT ALL but ask politely for a copy..."
I'm afraid that just doesn't work. Original recordings are important, because copies could be more easily edited without it being obvious (depending on how the video system works). I've found defence lawyers are not above this themselves. By way of example, I've seen a defence lawyer present still images from a CCTV recording, with some scenes magnified. Later we realised the images were out of chronological order and appear to have been run through Photoshop.
I guess the store can keep a copy, and modern digital systems often allow this, but the police will always need an original, date stamped.

posted by Wilbur at September 23, 2010 10:22 AM

---

Have any of you people noticed a civilian testified that Scott pulled his gun and pointed it at an officer before he was shot? A young woman, no less.

Nice Kangaroo Court you have here. No need to wait for facts to come out.

posted by Paul Fels at September 23, 2010 10:23 AM

---

The elephant in the room is the recording of the 911 call. Its non-release smells to high heaven. Is there any theoretical justification for keeping it secret?

posted by tom swift at September 23, 2010 10:49 AM

---

The initial reports were that the video recordings could not be recovered from the disks. The chances of several disks all failing at the same time are less than the chances that a meteor would hit the Costco security room to destroy the recordings.

If the recordings were destroyed, the only reasonable possibilities are that 1) the police destroyed them or 2) Costco employees destroyed the recordings.

If the police destroyed the recordings, it seems likely that it would have been done to conceal bad behavior by police officers. If a Costco employee destroyed the recordings it could be that the 911 call described an armed, drug addled lunatic destroying property and threatening people with a gun while video of actual events would not support this, making Costco liable to lawsuit and the Costco employees criminally liable for causing the death of Mr.Scott.

If the LVPD were expecting to deal with an armed, violent madman based on a 911 call, it would mitigate but not excuse their culpability. Peaceful citizens should not be killed by the police. At a minimum, LVPD needs a better procedure for dealing with these sorts of situations and that procedure needs to be taught to its police officers.

In the mean time I am going to stay out of Costco and stay out of Las Vegas because I don't want to be killed either by malice or by accident.

posted by Mark at September 23, 2010 10:50 AM

---

Here is a recap of the inquest being held in Las Vegas this week.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/coroners-inquest-erik-scott/

posted by inspectorudy at September 23, 2010 10:50 AM

---

Paul Fels, did you notice that the young civilian woman was a Costco employee? A part-time employee who could probably be fired at will? No possible bias there?

I think what people are wanting to see is actual video and audio evidence, because people have agendas and eyewitnesses in stressful situations are not always reliable.

posted by VKI at September 23, 2010 11:03 AM

---

Costco had a video SYSTEM. Which means, that to protect themselves, a backup copy should have immeduiately been created for themselves if the original were handed to the police. In fact, a copy should have been created for the police. A copy made at the time is as good ads the original- it's viseo.

The fact that video taken at the time by Costco is "unuseable" screams coverup.

posted by Harold at September 23, 2010 11:12 AM

---

ed, please read the link sent in the last thread from Carlos Miller's blog, in which attorneys who specialize in this area explain why you don't have to give your camera to the police. Note that they are *attorneys* whereas the poster here is a former cop. Sorry, "attorney" wins every time.

http://carlosmiller.com/2009/01/21/do-police-have-the-right-to-confiscate-your-camera/

With digital files, there's no difference between "original" and "copy". Again, I refer to the BART shooting of Oscar Grant for an example. There, police officers stole all cameras that they could get their hands on, an act recorded by phones which weren't stolen. The DA had to ask citizens to come forward with any video they had, oddly the police didn't have any. See how that works?

Most phones store the videos on internal memory, meaning you have to "make a copy" to get it out of the phone. In the Grant case, the DA made copies of the videos for use in the court case. All of you talking about "copies" and "timestamps" are very confused about how computers work. "Tampering" is a separate, unrelated issue.

To see how tampering works, read this:

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/04/26/and-the-lies-continue-to-mount-in-the-maryland-police-beating-case/

To summarize, police beat a guy in Maryland after a ball game. He wasn't doing anything, they just attacked. Cell phone videos captured the incident, and the officers are now awaiting trial. When the victim's attorney subpoenaed surveillance video from cameras in the area, the police claimed that the particular camera pointing to the area where the beating took place wasn't working. Later, they came up with the video, but oddly the two minutes when the beating took place were blank.

Again, this is why you do not trust police with the video evidence when police have committed crimes. First, post the video on youtube. That is the absolute first thing you do. Next, *make a copy* for your own keeping. If it looks like a big case (such as a killing), give it to local news organizations, too. Finally, make a copy for the DA and take it directly to the DA's office. Hand deliver.

As to the rest of McDaniel's writing, it's actually fairly balanced but still comes down on the side of hoping for the best of intentions on behalf of the officers involved. I don't believe this was premeditated, but the fact is that it was their guns that killed a man who posed no threat to them. Regardless of everything else, they are responsible for his death. They are also responsible for their reprehensible actions after shooting him, including handcuffing him (sorry, Mike, I don't buy your reasoning, and reasonable people wouldn't - he was shot 7 times) and then handling his body roughly when the ambulance showed up.

As to Paul's point, they've come up with one witness who saw a gun? And she trumps everybody else who didn't see a gun? Everybody says he had his hands in the air - even the original author doesn't dispute this.

posted by Michael Chaney at September 23, 2010 11:24 AM

---

"Have any of you people noticed a civilian testified that Scott pulled his gun and pointed it at an officer before he was shot? A young woman, no less.

Nice Kangaroo Court you have here. No need to wait for facts to come out."

Have YOU noticed that other witnesses have testified that no such thing occurred? And isn't demanding to see the video and hear the 911 call the exact opposite of not waiting for the facts?

posted by James Felix at September 23, 2010 11:30 AM

---

Hmmmm.

1. Anybody on prescription painkillers has no business carrying a firearm. I've been on perqs on occasion due to post-surgery and even then I avoid going to the range no matter how much I'd love to.

2. "almost lethal amounts of morphine and zanax"?

Anybody else find that phrase odd? I'd suggest an second opinion from an independent coroner.

3. The witness who saw the guy draw a weapon before being shot was evidently a part-time employee of ... Costco. This doesn't necessarily invalidate the testimony but I didn't see any other witness testifying the same thing mentioned anywhere.

4. Seems like a major effort to portray/reveal Scott as someone addicted to prescription drugs.

posted by memomachine at September 23, 2010 11:32 AM

---

"I guess the store can keep a copy, and modern digital systems often allow this, but the police will always need an original, date stamped."

There is no difference between the copy and the original. None. If police demand I surrender the original storage medium, I will politely offer to work with their IT staff to make a copy and confirm that the copy is bit-for-bit identical to the original, will sign an affidavit to that effect, including the MD5 checksum and original timestamp of the file, and will testify in court to back up that affidavit. They will have their chain of custody beginning with my testimony as the camera operator. But that's only if they do it my way.

Without my cooperation in testifying as to how that video got onto the original storage medium, there is no reason to believe that it was not tampered with. I will explain this to the police, and inform them that if they insist on taking my camera from me, they will no longer be able to get me to sign that affidavit, and in fact I will inform the attorney for the suspect that I will offer this testimony: As an IT professional, because that camera left my custody before I could compute and log the checksum, I can not state with certainty that the file saved on the storage medium is what I recorded.

If they are unmoved, and continue to insist I surrender the camera, I will demand that I be allowed to go through the available tools on the camera itself and view all the stored metadata about the video, record same to paper receipt, and have the officer sign it. If he refuses to provide me even this minimal protection, I will have to inform the suspect's attorney that I will testify to that effect. A jury hearing me describe the officer's refusal to catalog the evidence I was handing to him where we could both see it would take a very dim view of the veracity of the video.

posted by The Monster at September 23, 2010 12:23 PM

---

Seems I've read that Scott was shot multiple times with .45's. Four times in the back and one even in the arm pit showing his hands were raised. There were other shots fired into his torso in the frontal area but it those in the back in the one in the armpit thats grabs my attention. Those cops had better have some film showing a gun in Scott's hand or an example is going to be made of them. You don't kill someone because he's "carrying a gun." You don't shoot people in the back when they are down usually and if you have film it had better be forthcoming.

I just had lung surgery and was on oxycodone for awhile, they make you pain free not homicidal. Sounds like the cops were on something like an adrenalin rush.

posted by ronnor at September 23, 2010 12:26 PM

---

Yeah, the "lethal" amounts almost has to be intentionally misleading. Lethal for someone who has never taken them. For someone in a pain management program, they would be more properly called "normal" or "everyday" amounts.

The only thing he had lethal amounts of in his system were copper and lead.

posted by Phelps at September 23, 2010 02:00 PM

---

Michael Chaney and The Monster hit the nail on the head for the most part dealing with camera and such.

The police under no circumstances can take your cell phone, camera, etc without giving you a hand receipt for it period. Police who take cameras and such without giving a hand receipt have one goal... hide the evidence and legally they should be charged with a host of crimes... however its unlikely even in the best of cases cops are held to the same standard and laws as the public at large(or even they're own policies).

Under many states laws in fact a person recording a police crime is not legally allowed to give it to the police "on scene" due to the fact that would be giving evidence to suspects and interfering with a police investigation. Once again though police who live by a different set of laws above normal ppl are not held to that standard and are rarely if ever charged.

posted by robotech master at September 23, 2010 02:07 PM

---

@ Tom Swift,

The lack of disclosure probably should be more appropriately directed to the DA's office I would figure. They have probably been apprised of the situation of possible police misconduct and the possibility of charges against officers. At which point the prosecutors office would take ownership of the matter and direct that no release be forthcoming.

But The dept has bigger issues. My legal counsel is an old bull dog type. I have heard him more than once reply to a threat of a suit with -- "Be my guest you have the right. But be aware that having brought suit you open yourself to deposition. You will find discovery worse than going to trial. Still interested?" Only for the LVPD, when the wrongful death suit comes they will be flayed open like a boil.

posted by JohnMc at September 23, 2010 02:38 PM

---

mockmock,

Done properly, a copy IS what is introduced in court. Digital forensic labs have a defined set of procedures and software that assure that the digital copy is a bit for bit exact match to the original. There are ways to access storage in read only mode. Copy the contents bit for bit to a mated copy of the storage media and certify that the whole procedure is untampered as the software records all the steps that were performed. The original would then be returned to evidence lockup for safekeeping. Everything else done to the copy would be documented.

Keep in mind that in many cases the defense can request an independent evaluation of the original or observe the original extraction when performed.

posted by JohnMc at September 23, 2010 02:47 PM

---

Some of the best initial radio commentary by to locals, both with Police backgrounds one of them with Las Vegas Metro PD. Some insightful comments regarding the coroner's inquest as well.

http://archives.davechampionshow.com/Champion_1_071310_150000.mp3

posted by Difranco at September 23, 2010 03:42 PM

---

Tell Scott's father to keep his mouth shut; we, the public, have no need-to-know the specifics, such as his son's medications. The place for revealing this type of information is in court, through a lawyer with documentation. Especially in this case, where all the official forces are arrayed against Erik Scott & family.

posted by Jason Roth at September 23, 2010 04:10 PM

---

Everyone who really believes someone would lie under oath for her $10 a hour job at COSTCO, raise your hand. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Now there is testimony that Mr. Scott pointed a gun at a man whose dog bit Mr. Scott. Another one of his constitutional rights, I suppose?

posted by Paul Fels at September 23, 2010 04:54 PM

---

Your definition of malice aforethought being "planned ahead of time" is not correct. Malice aforethought can be developed in a fraction of a second. Murder can be mitigated to manslaughter if the malice aforethought was developed in the heat of passion, but the malice aforethought is there nonetheless. The definitions of murder and its elements (the killing of one human being by another human being with malice aforethought) don't change just because one of the parties was a police officer.

posted by Tinlaw at September 23, 2010 04:54 PM

---

"Original recordings are important, because copies could be more easily edited without it being obvious (depending on how the video system works)"

You're about 5 to 10 years behind the technology curve. This is not true for modern digital video.

posted by bw at September 23, 2010 06:17 PM

---

Paul Fels:

Not for $10/hour would somebody lie but we have no idea a) what other possible motives (love, etc.) might factor in which the young lady may value more than absolute honesty, b) whether or to what extent the witness was influenced by what she heard other people say they saw.

Witness testimony is consistent only in it's unreliability.

She may, for example, be the girlfriend of the security officer who placed the 911 call and would do anything for him, like perhaps remembering things she didn't actually see.

Security: "OMG, Jill, did you see it? He pulled a gun on the cops!"

Jill: "Oh, uh, yeah, I saw it, too!"

In this case, Jill initially just wants to be "in" on all the excitement only to find the cops putting her on the stand. So she "remembers" the event as such to protect her reputation and/or that of the security guy.

So, there are plenty of reasons why one witness recalls events differently than others.

posted by Director at September 23, 2010 06:44 PM

---

The last poster is correct. I am only questioning those who are making this troubled drug abuser the poster boy for our gun rights.

posted by Paul Fels at September 23, 2010 06:47 PM

---

I will be praying that the truth comes out, whether at the trial, or later in possible Court case to expose the truth. This father must take this to authorities who will have the video shown.

LV is a wicked place; I would have no problem believing the police there are corrupt and trigger-happy. These 3 cops should be haunted by their murder of this man for the rest of their lives. The death penalty should be one of their possible punishments.

Who wants to go to LV, and run the risk that they are the next victim of these killers?!

posted by Liberty's Daughter at September 23, 2010 09:38 PM

---

@ Paul Fels at September 23, 2010 06:47 PM

I love how you claim he was a drug on the strength of zero evidence right after claiming people who want to see the video are rushing to judgement. You're quite entertaining.

Without the video, one woman's testimony that Scott pulled a gun is utterly outweighed by the testimony of other who saw no such thing, but who report the police executed a man for no reason. The fact the police not merely seized the video but that they won't reveal even the 911 call and claim the video is ALL unusable, this is evidence on it's face the police are concealing misbehavior on their part.

posted by Tom Perkins at September 23, 2010 10:43 PM

---

"drug on" != "drug abuser on"

posted by Tom Perkins at September 23, 2010 10:44 PM

---

Another good link for those of you like the original poster who are naive enough to think that giving your phone laden with "evidence" to the police is a good idea:

http://hillsboro.katu.com/content/hillsboro-officer-involved-collision-sparks-mobile-phone-rights-questions

Let me set up an analogy to make it easy. Let's say a guy robs a liquor store one night, and on the way out the clerk says "Hey, sir, wait! Here's our only copy of the surveillance video - keep it safe so that if you're caught and have to go to court you can turn it in as evidence against you."

That's about as dumb as a box of hammers, right?

So, if the police officer commits a crime, that makes him a criminal. Hopefully you can finish putting the rest of it together.

posted by Michael Chaney at September 24, 2010 12:12 AM

---

Posted by: Michael Chaney at September 23, 2010 11:24 AM

Hi Mike.

I think we are discussing two different things here.

Confiscation of cameras that are recording/have recorded the police in their normal day to day duties...

VS

Confiscation of cameras that are recording/have recorded the police or others in the act of committing a potential crime.

I read your link and poked around that blog. It appears to me that it is usually illegal to confiscate the camera of some guy who is video taping the police or a government building or what not during the course of the day. It's a first amendment issue.

HOWEVER...

If there is a crime being committed (by the police or by a citizen) and a person is video taping it, that tape is now evidence that can prove the guilt or innocence of whoever is involved. And thus can be seized as evidence.

The question then is...do the police need a warrant or not?

I think that what I and what the author are saying is that since there is a definite chance that this person may leave the scene and not turn over that tape, the police are legally allowed to seize it without a warrant.

Now... I know that if the police are the ones who are doing something that could be construed as illegal, or is illegal, that they have a lot of motivation to seize and destroy this video evidence.

posted by ed at September 24, 2010 03:24 AM

---

Many posters here have an odd idea of what proof is. Name the person who has testified they saw the police execute Mr. Scott. The coroner testified about the drugs.

But of course only the police and their evil minions ever lie, right?

Neither you nor I really know what happened at COSTCO that day. The difference is I can admit I don't know. In your case, haters gotta hate...

posted by Paul Fels at September 24, 2010 09:03 AM

---

Paul Fels:

You really need to read what you yourself have previously posted. Your own bias is obvious:

"I am only questioning those who are making this troubled drug abuser the poster boy for our gun rights."

You state, unequivocally, as fact, that he was a "drug abuser."

You are thus discredited as the impartial observer you do a bad job of pretending to be here.

But, do feel free to continue!

posted by Bill Smith at September 24, 2010 10:39 AM

---

Once again, I didn't come up with stuff out of the blue. Check the Las Vegas papers for what the coroner and MR. Scott's own father said.

I never said I don't have a bias, everyone does. I'm saying I don't know what happened, and you don't either. I'm saying even the police share ALL the constituition rights that you enjoy.

Including a fair trail and proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. Since so much of this case depends on what the officers who fired THOUGHT at the moment they fired, you will never know the truth.

Won't stop you from thinking you do. Hate on...

posted by Paul Fels at September 24, 2010 11:12 AM

---

I think we are discussing two different things here.

We're not. If you had actually read Carlos' blog post (in which he quotes attorneys) they state very plainly that your video recording of a crime is not "evidence" and cannot be "seized". The only exception is if the camera itself is involved in a crime, such as child porn.

A warrant is required, and if you have recorded an officer commit a crime, then you need to hang on to the recording and require that they get a warrant. See my earlier post for proper procedure. Note that "giving the recording to the officer or his pals" doesn't appear at any step in the procedure.

ed, you obviously came to the conclusion that the police can "seize" cameras or video recordings and you show little interest in reading up on the subject.

posted by Michael Chaney at September 24, 2010 11:41 AM

---

You're about 5 to 10 years behind the technology curve. This is not true for modern digital video.

It was **never** true of digital video. Digital video can always be imperceptibly compromised. It's impossible to tell the difference between a video file created 10 years ago and today if they use the same codec because even file system data like timestamps can be altered.

posted by Mike T at September 24, 2010 01:32 PM

---

Michael Chaney,

I actually posted that link for him in the previous thread. I think Ed is just being obtuse. Miller interviewed several prominent attorneys on the subject and they all gave clear and convincing arguments about it.

posted by Mike T at September 24, 2010 01:34 PM

---

"..."Original recordings are important, because copies could be more easily edited without it being obvious (depending on how the video system works)"

You're about 5 to 10 years behind the technology curve. This is not true for modern digital video.."

BW, that might be the case if they actually have a modern system, but the vast majority of stores use systems that are several years old. I must have dealt with hundreds of bits of seized CCTV evidence over the years, and the average age of the systems involved is very old indeed, very few of them are modern.

A large proportion of them were unreliable, out of focus, looking in the wrong direction, or just plain not working at all too.

posted by Wilbur at September 24, 2010 10:10 PM

---

It is interesting. But all this it is really true?

posted by auto dealers at September 27, 2010 01:26 PM

---

Very insightful article. Thank you for taking the time to share your insights and experiences. Thank you for the comments and discussion on this tragedy. As evidenced by the comments, many of us see things differently, but that is part of being human. I pray that God will bless us with learning the truth soon.

posted by DisabledVeteran at September 28, 2010 06:56 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:23 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Having been born and raised in Florida, the home of the two oldest cities in the United States -- the Spanish were here first and in the largest numbers. The English were relative latecomers. Mayhap someone needs to go back and read some junior high history again.

posted by Micheal at September 22, 2010 08:53 PM

---

Mexico ain't Florida, and if you really want to talk about who got here first, look at the Norse (if you want to talk Europeans), or the Asians who tromped over the Bering Land bridge thousands of years ago who became the first "native" Americans.

posted by Confederate Yankee at September 22, 2010 09:36 PM

---

I would also like to point out that Americans are not English. When America declared its independence, it became a new nation, not an extension of British rule. So any arguments about the English being latecomers are irrelevant.

posted by Walt at September 22, 2010 09:50 PM

---

Are all of you forgetting the Sabre-Tooth-Tiger-Americans? Speciesists.

posted by John Davies at September 22, 2010 11:27 PM

---

It really doesn't matter who was here first. It's who's here last.

posted by Jeff at September 22, 2010 11:45 PM

---

why does everyone forget that spaniards are white europeans too?

posted by don at September 22, 2010 11:46 PM

---

The night The Manchurian Moonbat was elected, my closest friends & I adopted these immortal words as our credo:

We gotta take these bastards.

Sure, we could fight them with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives.

In this case I think we have to go all out. I think this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.

And we're just the guys to do it.

posted by Gorgo at September 22, 2010 11:49 PM

---

Mexico, and thus "Mexicans", did not exist at the founding of the U.S. Elementary geography and elementary history. To say "Mexicans" were here before the U.S. was founded is like saying "Canadians" founded Canada, not the British and French.

posted by Curmudgeon Geographer at September 22, 2010 11:52 PM

---

Say, Madeline Albright ever find anybody locked in Don Rumsfeld basement?

posted by Joe at September 22, 2010 11:58 PM

---

The real point is being missed here. Look at the first sentence: "Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples."

This land of plenty. He's not speaking of the natural resources. He's talking about the wealth that has been created. That's the "plenty" he's talking about. Yet he refuses to acknowledge the source of that wealth.

posted by Henry at September 22, 2010 11:59 PM

---

When he says "Mexican", he means "La Raza" - the distinctive Aztec/Spanish hybrid that many Mexicans hold as their racial identity.

In that sense, "Mexicans" did indeed predate Mexico.

My fear isn't that the President is an idiot; it's that he knew exactly what he was saying, and meant it.

posted by lewy14 at September 23, 2010 12:01 AM

---

Bernal Dias del Castillo was one of the Conquistadores with Hernan Cortez, and in his book "The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico" an eye-witness account (1522) he calls the "Aztecs" as "Mexicans" (Mexicanos) and their city "Mexico." The term "Aztec" was a term invented much later to call these people. Incidentally, Mexico at this time was pronounced something like Meshico. His book is very interesting and enlightening, with admiration and praise for the Indians and display of a wide range of emotions, not just gold-lust.

posted by Dennis at September 23, 2010 12:12 AM

---

Dennis is correct. Mexica is another name for what we call the Aztecs. But, the modern Mexicans are not Aztecs (Thank God), they are the descendants of the mixing of Spanish and the native tribes, including the Aztecs. So, we are back to 1810.

posted by Fat Man at September 23, 2010 12:26 AM

---

Obama may indeed have read, and been referring to, the "mexicans" in Bernal Dias del Castillo's "The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico".
Now if only he'd read a high school primer on economics.

posted by Diggs at September 23, 2010 12:28 AM

---

If you assume Dennis is right and that's what Obama meant was the Aztecs, well I could be wrong but I don't think the Aztec empire stretched into what is now the USA. Not even close. Unless he's referring to North America rather than the nation he's leading. If that's the case wtf?

posted by rjschwarz at September 23, 2010 12:37 AM

---

Actually, I kinda think of Obama as Dean Wormer.

Where can I buy 10,000 marbles?

posted by Alan K. Henderson at September 23, 2010 12:46 AM

---

Who today speaks of the Chiapas annexation, or the Soconusco annexation?

It is ludicrous to set an arbitrary date when everything was deemed "fair," then brand every change after that as unfair.

A little further south, the Incas had not quite finished their own conquest when Columbus landed in 1492. The Incas took until 1525 to complete the oppression of the "true" owners of Peru and Chile, and begin pushing up into Ecuador...

posted by Robert Arvanitis at September 23, 2010 12:55 AM

---

The Mexica (aka Aztecs) were just one of the many peoples in what is now Mexico at that time. In fact the conquistadors took advantage of that and played the oppressed peoples against their Mexica overlords, which was one of the reasons they were able to overthrow them so easily. The native ancestors of most of today's Mexicans generally didn't like the Mexica and were glad when they fell (though that didn't last long since the conquistadors weren't exactly rays of sunshine either).

Insofar as the term "Mexicans" can be applied to people living before the creation of Mexico, it would be to the Mexica that the term applies (though I personally think the term makes no sense to use before the inception of such an entity as a unified Mexico, any more than using "Spaniard" to refer to Carthaginian inhabitants of Iberia). So to characterize any but the Mexica's direct descendants as pre-1776 "Mexicans" would be disingenuous.

posted by Wacky Hermit at September 23, 2010 01:08 AM

---

People are way over-thinking his "Mexicans" comment. It was pure, deliberate, calculated pandering to the Hispanic audience. That's all it was. Whether Obama himself actually knew he was factually inaccurate doesn't matter. Obama will say whatever he feels he has to say to achieve a desired result. The man has no relationship whatsoever to "truth". Words are just tools to achieve an end.

In this case the "end" was to try to get Hispanics to offset the oncoming tidal wave of middle Americans fed up with his lies, his bankrupting of America, his bowing to our enemies and insulting our friends, and pretty much all else of Obama's true agenda.

It was pure, simple, deliberate, calculated pandering to an audience he was confident would lap it up.

And they did.

posted by CosmicConservative at September 23, 2010 02:10 AM

---

If la raza wanted north America, they should have fought harder for it. They didn't, and it's the United States now. End of story.

posted by Jones at September 23, 2010 03:07 AM

---

Sigh. No one could make me laugh like John Belushi.

posted by higgins1990 at September 23, 2010 03:12 AM

---

Elsewhere at Faber 2010: FOOD FIGHT!

posted by Apostic at September 23, 2010 04:28 AM

---

Obama is wrong as usual. Everybody knows that leaf blowers were'nt invented until the 1950's or so.
This is proof that Mexicans were not in America before that time.

posted by Walter at September 23, 2010 04:36 AM

---

The graduates of Ethnic Studies classes in our town like to teach little ESL students that all Mexicans should be proud of their superior Aztec heritage. Even when some of the kids are from other countries. Like Yemen.

This leads to ongoing fights over whether Mexican or Arab culture is superior. Among kids living in America. Multiculturalism is great.

posted by CT at September 23, 2010 04:45 AM

---

I think cosmic conservative 2:10 am nailed it. O neither knows nor cares about the facts. The reason they continue to call him a "scholar" is because they don't care about the facts any more than he does. It's all about the politics.

posted by Becky at September 23, 2010 05:10 AM

---

"Say, Madeline Albright ever find anybody locked in Don Rumsfeld basement?"

No, but while she's down there, could she grab a mop bucket?

posted by ben at September 23, 2010 05:16 AM

---

It's fine to know the history, but not if you're trying to rewind it.

He seems to have mastered the Golden Book version of U.S. history.

posted by flataffect at September 23, 2010 05:42 AM

---

The president's statement isn't exactly incorrect, though even read favorably it is odd. Remember that before the Mexican-American War, parts of Texas were Mexican territory. The Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo ceded (or sold) Mexican claims to territory in California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The subsequent Gadsden Purchase added additional chunks of previously Mexican land to Arizona and New Mexico. Any families who were in those areas before hostilities and whose descendants remain there are, in a manner of speaking, Mexicans who preceeded the United States.

But, that rather tortured and academic exercise aside, President Obama's sentiment is pure mularkey; full of the kind of multi-culti pablum we've come to expect from the egghead set that he typifies.

posted by SkippyGA at September 23, 2010 05:53 AM

---

You do realize that "America" was part of the Mexican-American War, right? So I think it's fairly safe to conclude that America had become an idea at that point, being in existance and all.

You could of course try to torture history by claiming that America didn't became an idea until July 4, 1776, but that mexicans became mexicans long before there even was a Mexico, but it's equally fair to say that the *idea* of America is hundreds or even thousands of years older, it's as old as anyone has wanted freedom and a chance to create their own life. It's as old as the Vikings that crossed the sea to find new land, or the asians that crossed the land bridge into Alaska for the same reason.

Or even as old as the first people to leave the African continent, looking for better opportunities somewhere else. That's the *idea* of America, the idea of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

posted by Erik at September 23, 2010 06:45 AM

---

Hey, he's right. I have proof the Mexicans where first in those 51st throught 57th states Obama talks about.

posted by Bob at September 23, 2010 06:54 AM

---

The Mexicans before America line is the kind of crap you hear at cocktail parties hosted by left wing twits. They spout such nonsense trying to impress each other on their activist creds.

There is one other place you hear this kind of garbage; second grade essays as the poor kids try to regurgitate the party line as their teachers present it.

posted by Longrange at September 23, 2010 08:13 AM

---

The country name Mexico is derived from the name of an Aztec tribe, the Mexica, and from the name of Mexico City, which the Aztec called Mexico-Tenochtitlan. Most Mexicans are descended from the indigenous population.

So yes, Mexicans were here before European settlers.

posted by Sterling at September 23, 2010 09:04 AM

---

Marmalard? Dead. Niedermeyer? Dead. Reid? Dead. Feingold? Dead.

posted by Comrade Al at September 23, 2010 09:50 AM

---

In defense of Obama, there WERE 57 venues in which the Democrats held primaries:

* The 50 states, of course,
* District of Columbia,
* Guam,
* The U.S. Virgin Islands,
* American Samoa,
* Patagonia,
* Rhodesia, and, er,
* Shangri La.

posted by ymal brucker at September 23, 2010 10:07 AM

---

Repeating myself from another forum, whether there were people referred to as Mexicans before Mexico became a independent nation or not or whether Americans were called Americans before the United States (they were) is kind of beside the point. The President says they (British, French, Dutch, Mexicans, Indians) were �sharing� the land. Is he using �sharing� in its commonly understood sense of �fighting numerous wars and countless battles, massacres and skimishes� or were they �sharing� the land some other way? I am perfectly happy to agree that the United States and Mexico �shared� the Southwest and California in 1846 and at the end of the �sharing� Mexico ceded the land to the United States. Somehow I don�t think that is what the President is saying and even from the weird historical perspective he brings to bear on questions his statement makes no sense.

posted by George Ditter at September 23, 2010 10:13 AM

---

I am offended - this is an insult to Blutarsky fans everywhere!

posted by Jason at September 23, 2010 11:30 AM

---

"When he says "Mexican", he means "La Raza" - the distinctive Aztec/Spanish hybrid that many Mexicans hold as their racial identity"

I'm sure you are an authorized interpreter of his meaning, but you're still wrong. He meant nothing at all, except his contempt for our country. He simply read the words on the teleprompter and gave it not one thought.

posted by willis at September 23, 2010 11:34 AM

---

The bloodthirsty Aztecs were feared and hated by all the other indigenous Mesoamericans in the surrounding region whom they brutalized, and without whose assistance Cortez's small band would not have been able to conquer the Aztecs.
Indeed it's believed some of the worst aspects of Aztec culture, the ritual child-killing, blood sacrifices, and ritual cannibalism were introduced into the Anasazi culture of the Southwestern Indians, by Aztecs who fled from the Spaniards.
Also the "Mexicans" who moved up the coast and received land-grants from the Spanish Gubb'mint - were engaged in a movement to free themselves from the distant, unresponsive, and burdensom Spaniards who taxed them heavily. They saw themselves as independent Californios, and not as Mexicans.

posted by DirtCrashr at September 23, 2010 12:51 PM

---

Meh. What were you expecting? They probably didn't teach much American history at Obama's madrassa.

posted by Swen Swenson at September 23, 2010 02:23 PM

---

Let's see those pre-1624 Mexicans' birth certificates!

posted by Alan K. Henderson at September 24, 2010 12:18 AM

---

Before you try to figure out who was here first, do some reading. 1) The settlements in S.A. are older than those in C.A. and those in N.A. This indicates a movement from South America northward into the current NM/AZ area. The Athabascan language was used by the populations from AK south into NM/AZ while Nahuatl was the language of the central and south American tribes. THe Aztecs were not the original folks in "Mexico", the Toltecs were there before the Aztecs. And there is much archaeological evidence indicating movement across the Pacific straight to S.A. The land bridge story is good for the common folks but you really got to get into the graduate programs to learn what the Profs really think/know.

Also you might try _Columbus_Was_Last_ available at Barnes and Noble. Folks were coming here long before Columbus. And the first person from Colubus' ship to reach this land was an Irishman who walked ashore. In fact many of Columbus' sailors were Irish as he went there before departing to get the maps of St. Brendan who probably sailed to the new world in the 5th century.

posted by fwb at September 24, 2010 12:57 PM

---

Put that spammer on Double Secret Probation!

posted by Alan K. Henderson at September 25, 2010 01:50 AM

---

Actually, I was just commenting about the name "Mexico" and it origins. I doubt that President Obama ever read or even heard of Bernal Dias. He was probably just running off a politically correct list of peoples. I think that a third or more of the Aztecs (Mexica) died of smallpox before the Spanish closed in and most of the rest died in the fighting as tens of thousands of other Indians assisted the Spanish in leveling their city. The Aztecs were indeed much hated. The vast majority of the Indian ancestry in Mexico is from other groups. And the Aztecs never came anywhere near what is now the USA. I recently saw a DNA study on some Mexican Indian groups and the mitochondrial DNA (from female line) was something like 90% Indian, but the Y-chromasome DNA (male line) was like 60% European and 10% African. I believe in 1848 all residents (except Indians) of the lands acquired from Mexico were declared to be US citizens.

posted by Dennis at September 25, 2010 07:49 PM

---

free download software,all software download ,drivers download

posted by download at October 17, 2010 10:23 PM

---

� Hide Comments

The death of West Point graduate Erik Scott outside a Las Vegas Costco at the hands of Las Vegas Police officers, is at best, a tragedy. At worst, manslaughter.

First and foremost, understand that I am writing in response to articles I have read about the incident. Anyone how has achieved professional status in the criminal justice system will attest that it�s very difficult to make conclusive, correct judgments regarding cases about which they have no direct knowledge, as I, and virtually everyone writing about this case, do not. However, professional knowledge of policy and procedure might help others to better understand the issues surrounding such cases.

Costco�s Role/Liability: While Nevada law does allow �public buildings� to prohibit lawful concealed carry by posting signs, no such signs were posted at Costco. Any business can ask any customer to leave, but again, apparently no such request was made of Scott. Costco also has a duty to train and properly supervise their security employees, but because the police are refusing to release the 9-11 call, we have no idea what their security employee told the dispatcher or their tone in the telling. A competent security force would surely keep a potentially dangerous customer under surveillance until the police arrived, particularly if they felt they were as deadly dangerous as the police response would tend to indicate, yet at this point, it�s not known whether they watched Scott by actually having security people keep him in sight, by means of internal security cameras, or both. And competent security people would await the police (if for no other reason than because the police should have told them to do just that) and immediately direct the first arriving officers to the potentially dangerous person, but that apparently did not happen. It seems Scott and his girlfriend continued to shop until the general PA system announcement to evacuate, and having no reason to believe it related to them, tried to leave with everyone else. What is known also indicates that Scott and his girlfriend actually walked past several police officers who were presumably already inside the store before store security pointed him out as he exited the front doors.

Unanswered Questions/Issues:

(1) Was Scott actually, clearly asked to leave, and if so, did he refuse?

(2) What, exactly, did the security employee say to the 9-11 dispatcher, and how did he say it? Did the police respond appropriately, given what they knew at the time, or did they overreact?

(3) Did Costco security keep an eye on Scott after the initial contact, and if so, by whom and how? If such video shows a man and woman calmly shopping, that will be, to put it mildly, damaging for Costco and the police. On the other hand, if the video shows an angry, erratic, hostile man, another interpretation may be in order.

(4) Is there internal videotape of Scott and his girlfriend before, during and after the initial encounter, and external video of the shooting? According to Scott�s father, the police have made statements indicating that they have seized internal and external video, but that it won�t be usable--not a good sign. If it supported the officer�s stories, they would surely be glad to use it.

Scott�s Culpability: What, if anything, did Scott do wrong? Let�s assume that he was not, as at least some suggest, irrational, hostile and threatening, but merely a man with his girlfriend on a shopping trip. There is apparently considerable evidence to suggest that this was the case, not the least of which is the apparent reluctance of the police to produce video. Scott was legally carrying his weapon and had no reason to believe he, and it, were not welcome at Costco. While it is unfortunate that he inadvertently exposed it, the mere sight of a holstered firearm should not be unduly alarming, particularly in a state widely known to have concealed carry. Scott, once approached by the store employee, apparently acknowledged his concealed carry status, and not being asked to leave, was within his rights to remain. The police deal with reports of this kind all the time, everywhere in the nation, and certainly do not respond with the kind of numbers and types of officers present in this case. Usually, one or two officers merely observe the person from concealment for a few minutes, approach, ensure that they have a concealed carry permit, and everyone goes on their way. While the police must treat every call where the potential threat of violence is present as unique, not routine, a quick, peaceful resolution to this common call occurs almost all of the time.

We can �what if� ourselves silly. If Scott immediately left, he might still be alive today, but there is no way to know with certainty, particularly since the content of the 9-11 call remains unknown. The police response also makes the outcome less rather than more likely. The available evidence indicates that Scott and his girlfriend continued to shop until the PA announcement of evacuation, and upon leaving the store, were confronted by the officers who found him empty handed. It�s hard to imagine what, absent immediately leaving the store after being confronted by the employee who apparently did not ask him to leave, he might have done differently, and it seems clear that he did nothing illegal, at minimum. Of course, if he was truly hostile, erratic and angry, that may change things, but even then much would depend on exactly how he was acting, when and where, and toward whom.

The Police Role: It�s important to immediately clear up common misconceptions about police procedure and the use of deadly force. Officers must act on the knowledge they have at the time they are dispatched to a call (the role of dispatchers will be examined shortly), and/or must follow the orders of their superiors. Officers acting in good faith, as any reasonable officer would act in the same set of circumstances, if they are acting in accordance with the law and commonly accepted standards of training and police procedure, will usually be accorded a substantial degree of deference by prosecutors and judges. Officers must sometimes make decisions in fractions of a second that may have deadly consequences, and those split second decisions will be analyzed after the fact by those under no imminent threat and with months of time to render a verdict on an officer�s actions. That said, everyone involved, particularly officers, understand that this is their reality. They live it daily, and are responsible for making the right decisions. No one is forced to become a police officer. In a very real sense, they�re used to it and we pay them to be used to it and to keep their heads when all those around them are losing theirs. Quite simply, they are supposed to be able to properly handle deadly force encounters.

The use of deadly force by the police is widely misunderstood. Generally, officers may use deadly force to protect themselves or others where there is an imminent threat of seriously bodily harm or death and the person against whom force is to be used is in a position to carry out that threat. One common way to understand it is to employ three terms: Means, opportunity and jeopardy. Does the suspect have the means necessary to cause serious bodily harm or death, such as a gun or knife? Does he have the opportunity? If armed with a handgun, is it holstered under clothing, or in his hand, quickly rising onto target? If armed with a knife, is he fifty feet away, or five? And finally, is he placing the officer or another in jeopardy? Is he actually taking actions that would convince a reasonable police officer that the threat of serious bodily injury or death is imminent--it�s going to happen and happen in seconds--rather than potentially at some future time. Notice that the standard for decision making is a �reasonable police officer,� not a �reasonable citizen.� The courts have taken notice of the specialized training and experience of police officers and understand that they are better suited than most citizens to make such determinations, which is reasonable.

If means, opportunity and jeopardy are present, an officer is not limited to firing one round from a tiny caliber weapon, nor does he have any obligation to fire a �warning� shot or shots, or to shoot the suspect in the leg or hand, or to employ any other movie action hero cliche. In fact, virtually all police agencies specifically prohibit warning shots or shots intended to wound. This is true for two primary reasons: Officers are responsible for every shot they fire and officers always, always shoot to stop, not to wound or kill. They shoot to stop the suspect from completing whatever action gave the officer the legal justification to shoot in the first place. A warning shot or a shot in the hand or leg will likely leave the suspect able to severely injure or kill others. In fact, a warning shot or wounding shot might be construed in court to indicate that the officer believed that he really did not have legal grounds to use deadly force. The likely best stopping shot is to the brain stem or failing that, the brain, but as those are very small, difficult targets, officers are trained to aim for center mass, the vital organs in the chest. If the suspect dies as a result of being stopped, that matters not at all, legally speaking. And if an officer has the legal justification to shoot, he has the authority, and the responsibility to shoot as much as required to cause the action that gave him justification to shoot to stop. If that takes one round of 9mm ammunition, that�s good. If it takes ten rounds of .44 magnum ammunition, that too is allowed, indeed, it�s required.

Another additional misconception: Hollow point ammunition. The police carry hollow point ammunition because it tends to expand and expend all of its energy in the body rather than over penetrating and ricocheting in unpredictable ways. The military, under international treaties, cannot use hollow point ammunition, but in the military context, it�s better to wound rather than kill soldiers. A dead soldier takes one man out of the fight. A wounded soldier, three, as two of his comrades are required to carry him. Over penetration and ricochet are serious concerns for police officers, particularly in urban areas. While hollow point ammunition may indeed be more deadly when used against the innocent, it is far safer for the police and the innocent when used against the guilty. Fortunately, police shootings of the innocent are uncommon.

The problem is that many police officers have, at best, occasional and incomplete firearm training. Many law enforcement agencies require only annual qualification with courses of fire that are less than demanding. I know of a police officer who was made a sniper on a SWAT team who had never owned a firearm prior to becoming a police officer, in fact owned no firearms as a police officer, having only his department issued weapons, did not carry a handgun off duty, did not fire any weapon unless required to do so for training or qualification and had no precision rifle training whatever. The rationale for his appointment as a sniper remains a mystery. Police officers are not uniformly noted for excellent marksmanship in fire fights. In fact, there are many incidents on record in which officers emptied their weapons at distances at which they could reach out and touch the suspect, yet missed with every shot--as did the bad guys. I don�t suggest that this is true of all police officers, merely that wearing the uniform does not automatically confer magical shooting powers beyond those of civilians. Sometimes, it�s rather the opposite. What is often forgotten is that knowing when to shoot is, in many ways, far more important than knowing how to shoot, and training in this vital skill is also an iffy matter for many police officers. But one additional fact remains: At the moment the suspect has stopped offensive action, shooting absolutely must stop. Shots fired beyond that point are no longer authorized by law and may very well be criminal. Remember, however, that multiple shots may be fired in a deadly force encounter in mere seconds. Yet understand that the police know that these problems exist, should properly train for and are expected to be able to deal with them.

There are, based on what we know about this incident, several other pertinent issues. In any confrontation with a potentially armed suspect (other than those I�ve already outlined involving obviously peaceful citizens carrying concealed weapons), Officers should have their weapons in their hands, but those weapons should be in �low ready�: Trigger finger in register (off the trigger and in contact with the weapon�s frame), muzzle pointed roughly at the level of the suspect�s hips/lower abdomen. This is essential to prevent accidental discharges if the officer is startled or experiences an involuntary muscle contraction, both common results of extreme stress. It is also essential so the officer doesn�t have his arms and weapon in front of his face blocking his view of the suspect and their actions. If shooting is necessary, from ready an officer is in a position to bring his weapon on target with sufficient speed to end the threat, and is in the best position to understand if shooting is actually required and lawful.

It�s also vital that one--and only one--officer assumes the role of the sole giver of commands while at least one additional officer assumes the role of taking physical control of and securing the suspect, which, at some point requires them to holster and secure their weapons as they will be in actual contact with the suspect who might take control of their weapon. If more than one officer is yelling commands, the possibility of fatal mistakes is greatly increased. In fact, these procedures are taught in any competent basic academy tactics class, and are included in the rules and procedures of any competent law enforcement agency. Done properly, the procedure works; it�s a thing of beauty. It offers the greatest protection for everyone present, and the greatest chance that no one will be harmed. Of course, if the suspect is determined to hurt others, refuses to obey orders, or is determined to commit suicide by cop, that�s a different matter and no matter what highly trained and competent officers do, deadly force may be necessary and justified.

Post shooting, it�s essential that the suspect be restrained--handcuffed-- and then immediately disarmed if still in possession of a weapon in any way. If the suspect has dropped a weapon, it should be left in place unless safety concerns make that impossible. There are many stories in police legend of officers who saved cases and ensured that criminals were convicted by upending a bucket or similar item over a crucial piece of evidence. sitting on it, and refusing even the incorrect, unthinking orders of their superiors in order to protect that evidence. It�s also essential that the suspect be given the most immediate medical help that safety will allow. This is essential to establish that the officers were not acting out of anger or malice, but merely doing their lawful duties.

The duty of every officer to tell the truth and to maintain an unbreakable chain of all relevant evidence should go without saying. In this case, surely all witnesses should have been quickly identified and complete statements taken--there were certainly sufficient officers present for that task. All possible video records should have been taken and scrupulously protected. And of course, an attempt to discover if any civilian video was shot should have been made, and if so, the devices should have been taken into evidence with appropriate receipts given to the owners. The officers involved in the shooting should have been immediately relieved of the weapons used in the shooting and other duty weapons issued to them. They should have been immediately separated and individually interviewed, on videotape. If they did not obtain an attorney before speaking with their own investigators, even if they were absolutely blameless, they are fools. In professional, honest law enforcement agencies, officers involved in shootings are criminal suspects unless the facts prove otherwise, and they must expect to be treated that way.

Unanswered Questions/Issues:

(1) Do the Las Vegas police have written policies/procedures pertaining to this and follow those procedures?

(2) Did the police direct the Costco Security employee to wait for the first responding officers so that Scott could be immediately located and identified? This would be absolutely vital for a potentially armed, dangerous suspect and should be revealed by phone or radio recordings.

(3) Did the police actually have legal cause to shoot or did they shoot without sufficient cause? Did they shoot accidently due to poor tactics or training? If there were at least three officers screaming conflicting commands at Scott, that may well be the case. Or was the shooting a tragic accident, the result of inadequate training, or at worst, negligent retention (keeping a potentially dangerous officer on the street)?

(4) After the first officer fired, who fired next and why? He must be able to articulate clear and convincing reasons for firing each and every round. Can he do this, or was he merely panic firing in response to an unexpected gunshot from whom, he knew not?

(5) At what point had the danger passed? As Scott fell, presumably face down to the ground, what clear, obvious and convincing acts on the part of Scott motivated multiple officers to keep firing into his back?

(6) Where was Scott�s weapon--and its holster--at each second of the encounter and its aftermath? Each millisecond must be convincingly accounted for.

(7) What do the videotapes, inside the store and out, show? Is Scott, at any point, out of control, hostile, raging, erratic? If so, to what degree, when and where? Or is Scott a man calmly shopping with his girlfriend? If he was out of control, the police would be expected to want to release the video.

(8) Was Scott screened for drugs? If there were drugs in his system, it would seem likely that the police would be making that information public.

(9) Were the officers immediately separated and kept separate before questioning? What do their statements say?

(10) Which officers fired which shots, when, why, and where did each round go? Perhaps not all of the rounds fired hit Scott. If not, what did they hit? These questions must be answered conclusively in any competent investigation.

(11) At least one ambulance had apparently been called at the same time as the police. How quickly was Scott afforded medical help?

(12) How was Scott�s girlfriend handled by the police? This might provide clues to their mindset.

Preliminary Observations: Again, remembering that those commenting on this case do not have all of the facts, some preliminary observations are not unreasonable. First and foremost, it�s vital to know exactly what was on the 9-11 tape, and the radio transmissions of the dispatcher(s) to all responding officers. Good dispatchers can save lives; bad dispatchers can cause them to be lost. Did the dispatchers involved accurately gather, process and relay the information they received? If not, they might be the first link in the police chain that led to Scott�s death.

It seems clear that the Costco security employee calling 9-11 did so with, at best, second or third hand information. Whether Costco security kept Scott under personal or video surveillance is unknown, but what is known may suggest that they did not, or did so only incompletely, and that they were not waiting for responding officers (the police should have directed the security employee to do this, which is again, something all officer should learn in their basic academy classes), identifying Scott only on the spur of the moment after he had already passed other officers, to whom he apparently posed no threat and to whom he apparently seemed unremarkable. Scott�s sudden appearance and identification appear to have surprised the officers involved in the shooting, putting them at a tactical disadvantage, a situation no officer relishes. They apparently found themselves in the open, with no cover, no direct control over the situation, civilians in the background (the potential line of police fire) and potentially in the way--very bad tactics that competent officers always try to avoid unless they are overtaken by circumstances. It also seems clear that the officers immediately drew their weapons and at least three began shouting conflicting commands, including �drop it,� when all available evidence indicates that Scott�s handgun was never in either of his hands. It would also seem that the officer�s demeanor greatly alarmed Scott�s girlfriend--with good cause--and she did all that she could to fend off what she feared would inevitably happen.

Once the first shot was fired, the other officers may have opened fire sympathetically rather than because of any observable reason for shooting, and may not, in fact, have known, at the time they began pulling the trigger, who fired the first round. Even if they were entirely justified in every shot fired, the four or more shots into the back of a man already dead or dying and face down on the ground, particularly if he had no weapon in his hands or within easy reach does not--at best--speak well of the officers, their training, or their agency, and it is surely a public relations disaster. In fact, in competent firearm training and tactics instruction, officers are taught to fire one or two rounds immediately, then to lower their weapon to ready and assess the necessity of firing again, a process that can be properly done in a second or less. In fact, they should also immediately glance to the right and left to eliminate tunnel vision, an unthinking focus on a tightly restricted field of vision that makes it impossible to see, hear or react to anything else, a common and dangerous human reaction to these situations (two of the officers who fired may have had only a year or less on the job), and what may have happened to each of the officers involved as it usually does in similar situations.

It is not unusual for the police to keep information out of the public eye for a variety of good and lawful reasons, at least until after the initial inquest or preliminary hearing. However, eventually, all of the evidence should be produced, and surely must be produced for the attorneys of the Scott family. If the police are blameless, they should be anxious to release the 9-11 call, the radio transmissions, and most importantly, all video evidence. When the time comes, if they are reluctant to make the evidence public, if evidence has been in any way mishandled, or worse, altered or destroyed, the public would be justified in drawing the most negative and damaging conclusions. After all, if the actions of the police were indeed justified and lawful, the video and audio evidence should exonerate them.

It is standard practice in many professional law enforcement agencies that another, independent agency, such as the state police, investigate officer shootings to remove any suggestion of corruption. Apparently this is not to be the case in Las Vegas. In fact, police procedure for any unattended death, and particularly those involving officer shootings, commonly require that the incident be handled as a homicide until it can be positively ruled out so as to properly deal with evidence and cover all bases. At this point, with admittedly limited information, any competent internal investigator should have serious concerns about the actions of the officers involved. Those concerns might well be eventually alleviated by the evidence, but absent convincing evidence that contradicts initial impressions, it would be hard to imagine how the police were justified in their actions in this case.




� Hide "Analysis of a Death: The Erik Scott Shooting"

---

What a sickening situation. I very much appreciate this article and its attempt to clarify the issues. I'd been considering applying for a CCW here in PA, but I think maybe I'll pass.

posted by ern at September 21, 2010 10:07 AM

---

Excellent analysis of the incident.

I disagree in one tiny area. You say: "Officers must act on the knowledge they have at the time they are dispatched to a call (the role of dispatchers will be examined shortly)..." If this is indeed current training for most police officers, it should be revised. Yes, good dispatchers can save lives by doing a better job of analyzing the initial call, but the officers on the line should be trained to evaluate the scene for themselves when they get there, rather than assume much of anything when they arrive. The initial call will almost always come from an individual who is NOT trained in observation, and who is in fact highly emotional and ramped up on adrenaline.

Years ago in my hometown, a foreign exchange student was shot and killed by a homeowner. The student and his friend were looking for a Halloween party, and initially knocked on the wrong door (they had a couple of numbers wrong on the address). The wife answered the door, saw two teenagers in costume, and panicked for some unknown reason (she herself could not say why, at trial) and screamed for her husband to "get your gun!" as she closed the door. As you would expect, the husband grabbed for his gun, went to the carport door of his house, opened it, saw the kids at the end of the carport, and opened fire. The kids were doing NOTHING threatening at the time, but the husband's perception of their actions was entirely keyed to his wife's initial overreaction at the front door. It was inevitable he would shoot the moment he decided to open the carport door, because there was literally nothing the kids could have done in a few split seconds that would have seemed non-threatening to the man who heard his wife yell "get your gun!" 5 seconds before.

Here, the responding officers should have been trained to understand that the initial caller may have overreacted, that they needed to reevaluate the situation with their own eyes.

I strongly support officer safety. But the "protect and serve" motto refers to their obligation to support the citizens of the community, not themselves.

posted by PatHMV at September 21, 2010 10:20 AM

---

4 rounds into his back could not have been because the officers reacted to the first officers shot. Those other officers would have had to track Scott to the ground before firing ... they were not reacting they were aiming and shooting to kill a man in the back ...
the 911 tapes and the COSTCO video will bring out the truth and every officer of official who lied (if they did) should be criminally prosecuted ...

posted by Jeff at September 21, 2010 10:24 AM

---

I would add a subsection to question #7:

Were there any police videocameras (cruiser or shoulder mounted) trained on the scene? What do they show? Were the officer's radio's recording any audio? If so, where is it? If neither audio nor video is available, why not? was the equipment available, and officers trained in its' use?

posted by SDN at September 21, 2010 10:32 AM

---

The 4 rounds in the back are what bother me the most here. In most states, that's a form of murder. If the police showed up to your house on an armed robbery call, and the perp had 4 rounds in the back, you'd be a homicide suspect. It wouldn't matter if you hit him a .22 practice pistol and he came in with a sawed off shotgun or a AR-15.

posted by Mike T at September 21, 2010 10:37 AM

---

All possible video records should have been taken and scrupulously protected. And of course, an attempt to discover if any civilian video was shot should have been made, and if so, the devices should have been taken into evidence with appropriate receipts given to the owners. The officers involved in the shooting should have been immediately relieved of the weapons used in the shooting and other duty weapons issued to them. They should have been immediately separated and individually interviewed, on videotape.

Your analysis was great, but this part sticks out like a sore thumb. Costco should have *not* given the police the video without a subpoena. Likewise, anybody recording an incident like this on a cell phone should *never* *never* *never* give it to the police. Offer to make a *copy* after they subpoena it. Post to youtube first. I've read about a lot of cases, and in every single one they have destroyed the video or pictures. Every single time.

You're assuming that the police agency will try to mount an investigation rather than a coverup. I am familiar with no cases where this has happened, but I am familiar with an untold number of coverups. (as an aside, feel free to provide me with counter-examples) This is obviously yet another case of a coverup.

It's silly to think that the LVPD is going to actually investigate a killing by the LVPD, particularly when one of the officers killed someone a couple of years ago (a fact which would complete your analysis).

To continue:

Post shooting, it�s essential that the suspect be restrained--handcuffed-- and then immediately disarmed if still in possession of a weapon in any way.

Actually, no, it's not essential in a case like this. It's utterly despicable. They shot him 7 times, including 4 times in the back. There's no reason to handcuff him. I've noticed this depraved act in other officer shooting stories, such as Oscar Grant and Kathryn Johnston, both of whom were obviously fatally wounded and should have at least had the courtesy of their killers to be afforded a comfortable death. Instead, it seems to be the ultimate way to show your domination of the victim.

It�s also essential that the suspect be given the most immediate medical help that safety will allow. This is essential to establish that the officers were not acting out of anger or malice, but merely doing their lawful duties.

Witnesses to the Erik Scott killing have said that the officers provided no medical help, but handcuffed him and let him lay there. One witness described them loading him onto the stretcher as throwing a sack of potatoes:

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/12801643/family-gets-chilling-account-of-costco-shooting?redirected=true

It's nice to assume the best in people, but bottom line is that you're not dealing with polite people. The good officers that we have are afraid to speak out, so they all end up being part of the herd. It doesn't work out well in a case like this.

posted by Michael Chaney at September 21, 2010 10:38 AM

---

You say

"It�s also vital that one--and only one--officer assumes the role of the sole giver of commands... In fact, these procedures are taught in any competent basic academy tactics class, and are included in the rules and procedures of any competent law enforcement agency."

Which suggests that the accounts of multiple officers shouting multiple conflicting commands is a result of them not behaving as they were trained. I think that is a serious misunderstanding of why they were yelling. They weren't yelling commands at Scott, Scott did not get shot because he disobeyed what the officers were yelling, and they were doing exactly as trained. You see, almost all law enforcement officers in this country are trained that if they are going to shoot someone once they make that decision they must begin yelling something urgent and loud like "Freeze!" or "Drop the weapon!" or "Stop resisting!" while they draw and as they shoot. That way, if there are any witnesses and the officer must defend the decision to shoot in a court or inquiry later the witnesses called will remember the officer urgently shouting at the victim to "drop the weapon" (or whatever) and perhaps it will color their recollection of the event in the officer's favor or at least it will corroborate the officer's claim that they thought the cellphone (or ID, or shiny watch, or whatever) was a dangerous weapon. That is why they were all yelling at him; they were all shooting at him and if they are shooting they must also be yelling.

The officers were not yelling "commands" that Scott ignored or got confused by which resulted in them deciding to shoot. They were really yelling to the other witnesses things they wanted them to recall hearing when they later testified about the shooting. The yelling therefore indicates that the police (or one of them) had already made the decision to shoot and they had begun shouting their 'magical talisman' CYA phrase that wards off lawsuits and firings and prison time exactly as they were trained to do.

Now, I say "trained" but I doubt you'll ever find that bit of training on any official lesson plans in the Las Vegas PD. It is not the sort of thing that is done in official settings, but rather one-on-one training that is done privately as wise words handed down from veteran officers to the newbies. The fact that this training is not standardized is apparant from the fact that there was so much variation in what specific CYA phrase each individual officer yelled after they made the decision to shoot. If you do not believe this interpretation of events then ask some law enforcement officer friend or relative privately about it.

posted by ctaylor at September 21, 2010 11:04 AM

---

If the employee told Scott that Costco does not allow weapons on their premises, that is a TACIT request to remove it from the store. Part of responsible carry is to immediately remove the weapon from the premises should you be informed it is not welcome by anyone representing the store. They don't have to ask you to leave - and frankly, most store employees aren't going to get into an escalated debate with someone carrying a firearm. It was his responsibility to immediately leave, not argue that he has a carry permit. And not to keep milling about the store with it.

That said, I believe that is completely separate from the shooting, which at this point sounds wholly unjustified. Even had the store personnel simply noticed the gun and called 911 without confronting Scott about the policy, this tragedy would likely have happened the same way. And frankly, since he was exiting the store, what precisely was the reason the police needed to confront him guns drawn? The parking lot is very likely a legal non-prohibitable area for concealed carry. As long as the gun wasn't drawn, there seems to be little reason to draw down on him especially with so many people around and his girlfriend presumably right next to him.

This was a shooting that was preventable - by following common sense carry behavior, and by better self control by police officers.

posted by MEC2 at September 21, 2010 11:15 AM

---

it is my understanding, and I assume I will be corrected if wrong, that one of the officers invovled had already been invovled in a fatal shooting in the past and was cleared of wrongdoing. And that LVPD has had 200+ inquires into officer involved shootings over several decades, with only one officer being found to have acted improperly.

Does anyone believe that LVPD won't rule this as a justified shooting?

posted by JamesT at September 21, 2010 11:18 AM

---

Actually TOO MUCH INFORMATION. If the incident is as it is reported, the police and COSTO are responsible for this innocent man's "manslaughter".

What now? A cover-up by the police and COSTCO "seems" to be going on as they refuse to release the Audio 911 recordings or the Security Camera Video.

The cops should be immediately removed from active duty, their firearms taken away. This is going to end up in a civilian court with a hefty settlement by both the Las Vegas Police Department and COSTCO.

It's a travesty and shame that the Las Vegas Police are so poorly trained.

posted by jgreene at September 21, 2010 11:19 AM

---

"I'm also a veteran of nearly two decades of civilian police service, ... The death of West Point graduate Erik Scott [...] At worst, manslaughter."

Of course a cop defends his fellow cops. You don't even need to read the rest of the article (no, I didn't); that quoted bit right at the start tells you everything you need to know about this guy

It was blatant murder and anybody with sense and who isn't compelled to lie out their ass to defend their fellow thugs can see it.

posted by Rollory at September 21, 2010 11:47 AM

---

In my humble opinion,this was not manslaughter, but
outright murder with official sanction. The officers
involved should be charged with murder because of their actions that resulted in this mans death and
possible cover up. I am surprised a throw down piece was not discovered. Every officer in this dept. should be relieved of his duty firearm until
such time as a review of their training has been performed,along with all being relieved of duty
till an outside agency(preferably from outside the
state)completes an investigation. We are now living in a police state where even a legal CWP
puts a person in jeopardy of being shot by the
protect and serve mafia.Think twice before you
visit Las Vegas.

posted by warlord at September 21, 2010 11:55 AM

---

Let me say up front that I am completely ignorant of the training received in ccw classes. However I think the safest procedure, if you're carrying and find yourself at police gunpoint, is to reach for the sky and stay that way. Lie down if they tell you, but NEVER reach for the gun. Let them disarm you.

posted by irright at September 21, 2010 11:56 AM

---

My preferred CCW carry is a Glock 26 in front pants pocket. Not the fastest draw, but I am big enough and the DeSantis Nemesis is good enough that it's not immediately evident that I am armed. No criticism of Mr Scott, IWB carry is entirely valid but having carried that way in the past I am constantly worried about printing my firearm or exposing it.

Secondly, if asked to leave because I have a CCW permit and am exercising my rights legally in an establishment without proper signage, I am definitely going to leave. This is primarily because I am not dropping a dime at a store that employs pinheads like the guy at Costco that got hot and bothered about a legal carry. That idiot has just cost his company thousands of my dollars.

Thirdly, if I see a police officer with a gun pointed at me, my plan is to interlace my fingers behind my head and go to my knees as fast as possible. They are looking for submission, I want to show that to them as soon as possible. The police are probably more scared walking up to the store than I am, they're thinking "Am I going to end up like that guy at the Oshman's in Irving? Am I going to end up like the guys in Oakland or Pittsburg?" I would feel much better if the author of this article were the officer sent to investigate, but rather than giving the police the opportunity to forget their training I am going to remind them visually that I am complying.

Fourthly, I am not going to put a hand anywhere near my weapon, or even toward my weapon. I'd much rather end up facedown in the parking lot with a knee in my back and gravel in my face than shot multiple times. A lawyer can figure out the relative liabilities of the police department and Costco at a future date, assuming I make it to the future date.

All of the above is because I have had the opportunity now to consider what I would do based on the tragic circumstances encountered by Mr. Scott. I can't control the police, but I can control myself. There was no one thing that Mr Scott did wrong, and there are a lot of things the LVPD officers did very wrong, like all tragedies it is the summation of decisions that in retrospect were in error, but prospectively were entirely reasonable.

It was entirely reasonable for Mr Scott to assume he was able to exercise his legal rights. It was entirely reasonable to assume that with the departure of the security guard, Costco was satisfied with his response. It was entirely reasonable to assume the store evacuation was unrelated to him. It was mostly reasonable to attempt to show the officers where his firearm was located, that it was holstered and was not a threat to them.

Much sympathy for the Scott family, and I hope that justice is done.

posted by Darren at September 21, 2010 12:01 PM

---

I agree with Rollory that I detected the "Brotherhood of Cops" attitude immediately and read the article with disdain. One shot in the arm pit and four in the back! If this poor smuck had been black this would be on national TV every night until these gunslingers were in jail. Also, mentioned above about the four shots in the back are allowed only if you are a cop is true. Do you remember the fast food clerk who had been robbed by ARMED robbers who shot one of them and then shot him twice more after he was down? He was charged with a felony. BTW the perps were black and the clerk was white so maybe that explains the public sympathy for the dead perp. My motto is when it comes to cops keep your hands in sight above your waist and say absolutely nothing to them. Let them do the talking and answer them in the shortest way possible. If you are carrying let them take the gun out of its holster. Do not reach for your weapon for ANY reason or command. Imagine the video tape, WITH NO SOUND, of you reaching for your gun after having been commanded to remove it. Their mistake is your death! They will not be prosecuted for it. I don't envy a cop's job but they chose it just like Obama did so STFU and do your job correctly or resign!

posted by inspectorudy at September 21, 2010 12:12 PM

---

I'm with irright. The first - and only - reaction of someone carrying a weapon HAS to be to stop, raise his hands and do absolutely nothing that would make police officers fearful.

And no, I'm not blaming the victim, just pointing out that he could have done something to increase the odds of surviving the incident... just as a young woman can improve her odds of getting home safely if she doesn't walk through dark alleys.

posted by steve at September 21, 2010 12:18 PM

---

There were certainly parties acting improperly while carrying weapons, and it wasn't Erik Scott.

If the "officers" involved in this fiasco had been private citizens, they would all be accessories to murder. As it is, none of them will be charged, and they'll all retire at 50 on a gold-plated pension paid for by me.

You can discuss the particulars of this case all you want, but does it matter? Do you honestly believe the facts, or the law, will make a difference?

I'm sad to say it, but "Serve and Protect" is a myth. It's just a job, with no oversight and extraordinary power. At best, it's a job done competently and predictably - and you won't get any "most of them are great cops" disclaimer from me. At worst, somebody decides to go in shooting, and there's nothing we can do. Our only hope is to pray they don't notice us.

posted by Bubba Cephus at September 21, 2010 12:43 PM

---

I want to say that I am definitely not blaming Scott here. Nor do I wish to blame the cops yet, although it certainly doesn't look good. I hope good video of the incident turns up so more can be known.

Also, above, I meant to capitalize "THEM" in "Let them disarm you."

posted by irright at September 21, 2010 12:50 PM

---

In no way does it justify the actions of the police officers, or any hysterics by whomever from Costco called in Mr. Scott's presence in the store, but either Mr. Scott or his companion had to be Costco members in order to shop there. And Costco states in its membership agreement that private firearms are not allowed in their stores. Therefore, he WAS wrong about being able to carry there, regardless of his carry permit, and had acknowledged it by signing the membership agreement. Read what you sign.

posted by Tim at September 21, 2010 12:54 PM

---

Given the police response in this case, it seems pretty clear they were told something in the vein of "drug crazed lunatic running around shooting at people". I'm a little more critical of the officers' actions than you are, but I suspect most of the blame here lands on Costco for wildly exaggerating. It'll be interesting to hear the 911 tape. If the civil jury hands ownership of the company over to Scott's family, I may even shop there again.

posted by J at September 21, 2010 01:09 PM

---

Pat, You got the story wrong. The guy had been harrassed by people knocking on his door and running. On that night when he opened the door the Japanese student advanced on him and was shot. He was keyed up by the wife's panic and reacted to a preceived danger rather than the actual danger.

posted by Lorenzo Poe at September 21, 2010 01:12 PM

---

Tim,

It also adds nothing to the conversation to point out how he could have prevented this. The man did not behave unreasonably or illegally. Focusing on what he could have done to prevent something he could not foresee only serves to implicitly turn some of the blame away from Costco and the police.

I know you said that's not your intention here, but that is what comments like yours (and a few other people's comments) do.

The fact is that the police shot and killed him while they had him under control and he was posing no threat to them. That is the only real story here.

posted by Mike T at September 21, 2010 01:19 PM

---

"Of course a cop defends his fellow cops. You don't even need to read the rest of the article (no, I didn't); that quoted bit right at the start tells you everything you need to know about this guy..."

Well Rollory, if you HAD read the essay before posting you could have avoided proclaiming your ingnorance to the blogosphere. Anyone who reads this and comes away thinking it's a defense of the LVPD's conduct here could only be a product of our public school system.

posted by James Felix at September 21, 2010 01:36 PM

---

Where is the FBI. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. All video, and all backups being "unrecoverable" is an extraordinary claim, absent an explanation of why, to me is beyond the realm of possibility. Absent an independant (federal clearing) of wrong doing how can I conclude this isnt corruption. How can I conclude that manslaughter hasnt been covered up by willful destruction of evidence. A crime has been committed here.

The victim, and the family are guaranteed due process federally, and the denying them of that is a federal issue. THE FBI NEEDS TO GET INVOLVED.

posted by Anonymous at September 21, 2010 01:56 PM

---

I don't get how Costco's videos aren't available. For loss prevention purposes they put an entire array of cameras around the doors so that they can film every customer leaving and having their receipt checked and the camera coverage extends the the outside as well. The recording camera at my Costco was some of the latest and greatest in digital recording gear, high quality video off of every camera in the store was kept and it was easy to keep the video on the same time.

Costco and the cops saying there's no video is just highly unbelievable.

Also, at my Costco they shipped in California Type A assholes to be managers and supervisors. Those guys were some scream first, scream second and then show you the days plan kinds of guys. If one of them was on the phone with 911 he could have been screaming that it was a war zone and freaked the dispatcher and cops out to start this whole show.

posted by Allen at September 21, 2010 02:10 PM

---

Sickening, trigger happy cops kill again, and are now busy trying to cover it up as best they can.

posted by anon at September 21, 2010 02:20 PM

---

"While it is unfortunate that he inadvertently exposed it, the mere sight of a holstered firearm should not be unduly alarming, particularly in a state widely known to have concealed carry."

You may also want to note that Nevada is rated as a "gold star" open carry state by opencarry.org. Open carry is 100% legal there, and in some places not unusual at all.

posted by Spade at September 21, 2010 02:25 PM

---

At present, all the apparent facts seem to point to this being a homicide committed by the LVPD on an innocent civilian.

Costco may well be to blame for inflating the situation with the 911 call. Either way, this civilian, Erik was shot 4 times in the back for the offense of carrying his legal firearm into this store.

Is anyone else going to join me in a call for a bouycott of Costco until they release all of the evidence into the public domain.

If this turns out to be murder by Cop and Costco are implicated, then i hope the LVPD get's cleaned out - officers jailed, new management team put in, and Costco goes broke from a nationwide bouycott.

posted by dee at September 21, 2010 02:25 PM

---

Las Vegas is going bankrupt on the civil settlement - taking 3-1 odds...

posted by Bill Johnson at September 21, 2010 02:48 PM

---

Simple solution here
everyone write or call or email Vegas and tell then you are boycotting till the cops are fired and jailed

posted by Them at September 21, 2010 02:49 PM

---

"the police have made statements indicating that they have seized internal and external video, but that it won�t be usable"

I'm not buying this for a second. There have been too many questionably incidents where LEO's have simply "lost" the video.

"At least one ambulance had apparently been called at the same time as the police. How quickly was Scott afforded medical help?"

SOP for many departments (written or otherwise), particularly urban ones, is that suspects do not receive any sort of aid from the officers. Since paramedics are sometimes restricted from the scene or choose not to enter for safety concerns, this means quite a few people get to bleed out while handcuffed. Nobody complains until the "wrong" person gets shot.

In the past, I've generally been someone who'd be either defending officers' actions, or at least explaining them to those who do not understand. In this instance, it appears that the officers were pretty much set up for failure by whatever information they received before arriving, and that this was then compounded by poor verbal commands.

Scott's supposed reaction did not help either, but if the officers were in fact ordering him to "drop the gun", "get on the ground", and "put his hands over his head", he likely would have been shot regardless of what he did.

The moral of this story for LEO's is to remember that you frequently do not know what is going on. This is why cops have a much higher chance of shooting the wrong person entirely when they respond to a call than do civilian CCW'ers who become involved.

The moral of this story for those carrying CCW's is not to follow police directions exactly - it does not appear at this point that this was possible - it is to LEAVE immediately if someone makes that you are carrying. Dealing with a panicked citizen is not worth the trouble, or your life.

posted by wtfo at September 21, 2010 02:51 PM

---

What I want to know is under what legal authority does the LVPD have the right to confiscate all video and then refuse to release them or the 911 dispatch call for review?

Where is Internal Affairs on this? Where is the FBI. Are there NO federal or state agencies that have jurisdiction or oversight to FORCE the LVPD to release this information?

What recourse do honest, law abiding citizens have in a situation like this?

posted by Joshua at September 21, 2010 03:06 PM

---

As a minority male with a CCW, I'm pretty much convinced that if I ever need to draw my weapon in defense of my loved ones it will almost certainly be fatal, whether from the bad guys or the cops.

posted by Ray at September 21, 2010 03:13 PM

---

Joshua - they have no authority to steal video or recording equipment. That's why you don't give it to them in the first place. If a cop asks you (or demands you) to give them your camera, politely but firmly deny and explain that they can subpoena it if they have need for it, and offer your information for them to contact you later.

In this particular case, Costco is at best complicit in this by giving them all the copies and going along with the obvious lie about none of the video being retrievable. It probably *isn't* retrievable now.

posted by Michael Chaney at September 21, 2010 03:15 PM

---

Read the fine print. 200 officer shootings: one disciplined officer. By definition, because they ARE police, they are innocent of anything but following training policy and procedure.

posted by Robert at September 21, 2010 03:21 PM

---

The sort of fear and hysteria evidenced by the Costco folks seems to be a direct out-growth of the anti-gun movement. The mere SIGHT of a holstered firearm was enough to cause Costco to summon many armed officers who were ready to kill on sight.

Too many people reading news stories about how 'the gun went off' all on its own, perhaps...

Orion

posted by Orion at September 21, 2010 03:40 PM

---

May the officers get what is coming to them, which should be a murder one conviction. There is no plausible way you can shoot someone in the back who is facing you and have a situation where it is possible that the additional discharges are justified.

posted by JohnMc at September 21, 2010 03:53 PM

---

"Joshua - they have no authority to steal video or recording equipment. That's why you don't give it to them in the first place. If a cop asks you (or demands you) to give them your camera, politely but firmly deny and explain that they can subpoena it if they have need for it, and offer your information for them to contact you later.

"In this particular case, Costco is at best complicit in this by giving them all the copies and going along with the obvious lie about none of the video being retrievable. It probably *isn't* retrievable now."

Posted by: Michael Chaney at September 21, 2010 03:15 PM

Can we get some clairity on this? I'm pretty sure that the police are legally allowed to confiscate those cellphone and video tapes as evidence.

I'm pretty sure they don't need a subpoena.

Can anyone else with some knowledge about this chime in?

posted by ed at September 21, 2010 05:14 PM

---

Can we get some clairity on this? I'm pretty sure that the police are legally allowed to confiscate those cellphone and video tapes as evidence.

You might want to read this. In general, the answer is "no, they cannot without a court order." The main exception cited there is if the camera is actually used in the commission of the crime.

That makes especially good sense when you consider that with surveillance footage being stored in secure areas of stores, it would present a tremendous loophole to search warrants if the cops could barge in and seize it on their own authority outside of truly exigent circumstances.

posted by Mike T at September 21, 2010 05:21 PM

---

What an unbelieveable report! It is unfathomable.

Please, everyone reading this who wants their CCW, DO IT!

The reason this happened is due the ridiculous, reactionary environment we have in America toward guns. We must do it, or those on the left who planted this evil seed will win.

There must be some recourse through our Courts, and I pray that Mr. Scott, the victim's father, DOES take this right to the Supreme Court if necessary. For the sake of his son, who deserves MUCH MORE than this for his life.

Yes, everyone in Clark Co. should be outraged, and protesting what happened. Their very lives are in danger from an out-of-control police department, that is NO doubt corrupt. Please people of Clark Co. do something about this; for no one will want to return to LV again.

The Country is depending on you to do your duty.

posted by Freedom's Daughter at September 21, 2010 05:22 PM

---

"...but "Serve and Protect" is a myth". You got that right...it's more like "Harass and Abuse"

posted by mack at September 21, 2010 06:26 PM

---

Wow. Too bad the guy wasn't black, because there would be riots in the street until the video was produced. Why don't white people care when other white people get killed by the cops? Not that they don't care, but they don't demand action of the cops. I am sure that there is a judge somewhere who would allow the tapes to be released to the family's attorneys on a foia. Oh, and one last question: What was the race of the cops who shot him? Sorry that's racist, but that's just the way it goes nowadays, thanks to Obie. And where is Obie to say that the cops acted stupidly???????

posted by TimothyJ at September 21, 2010 06:54 PM

---

RE: (5) "As Scott fell, presumably face down to the ground, what... acts on the part of Scott motivated multiple officers to keep firing into his back?"

Typical, reactive, pack mentality. Add; easy target.

Wolves exercise better control. Frightened poodles, not so much.

See "negligent retention," as if the pack would somehow react differently because 'Trigger-Happy-Tom' was there next to them, gun drawn, high-ready.

Well, I have a slightly different take; Tom's presence is a virtual license to kill. And is why "Tom" will always be...retained.

posted by Jason Roth at September 21, 2010 07:13 PM

---

"The fact is that the police shot and killed him while they had him under control and he was posing no threat to them."-TimT

Murder. And co-conspirators aiding and abetting.

Either police have open season on the populace -OR- there is the "rule of law".

Mexicans lost control over their cops. But Americans will not tolerate cop cartels.

We must all hope that wiser heads prevail, and charges for murder and for conspiracy are filed. Or police create a situation where "there is no law". Murder and lying to protect murderers is a gang/cartel activity.

Without "the rule of law", Citizens will have to control and disarm cops, "for citizen safety", if they want to live. Or accept domination by the cartel, and these regular 'acceptable' deaths.

Everyone expects cartel behavior from LVPD. I hope for the rule of law; because blatant cartel behavior would destroy belief in the rule of law, and it would make this just another dangerous 3rd world country. Rule of force, rather than rule of law. Nobody wants that... except the police are creating that.

May wiser heads prevail.
I'm too old for anarchy.

posted by sofa at September 21, 2010 08:52 PM

---

Orion "The sort of fear and hysteria evidenced by the Costco folks seems to be a direct out-growth of the anti-gun movement. The mere SIGHT of a holstered firearm was enough to cause Costco to summon many armed officers who were ready to kill on sight."

What makes it even worse is that Nevada is an "open
carry" state. Rated Gold Star Open Carry by opencarry.org. You would think people in Nevada would NOT lose their minds upon seeing a firearm.

posted by rickb223 at September 21, 2010 09:03 PM

---

My Comment, Part II

At no point was there any claim that the victim had a weapon in is hands; or that any of the shooters could see a weapon; and the fact is, that he had a weapon is incidental and fortuitous to the shooters.

Had US Soldiers done this in the 'Stan they would surely be accused of war crimes, prosecuted by their own command, and likely convicted of cold-blooded murder. Fairly so, given that they killed a man merely because some unknown informant pointed at him.

The fact that our civil authorities will tolerate treatment of own civilians that we do not tolerate of our enemies speaks volumes of what kind of country we really are.

posted by Druid at September 21, 2010 09:22 PM

---

It sounds very likely that all the videos and 911 tapes will turn out to be "unusable".

Let us pray that some bystander video'd this, and that the police of Las Vegas will not arrest and/or shoot him when he shows up.

posted by Ellen at September 21, 2010 09:32 PM

---

The new Chief of police in Dallas has fired 10
officers since taking office. Most recently,
one officer was fired, and others are facing
criminal charges, for _beating_ a suspect who
tried to evade arrest.

The killing of Erik Scott, and the coverup,
are a clear warning to the citizens and the
businesses of Las Vegas that their police
department, and their city government, are
in need of radical reform.

posted by M. Report at September 21, 2010 10:14 PM

---

I have never been a peace officer or a lawyer.

Having said that: I thought this was a balanced and useful article. I'm a bit distressed by some of the comments. This may very well be a case of manslaughter, though a different picture may come out in discovery if the family sues for wrongful death. But murder 1? What motive would the cops have to premeditate Scott's murder?

posted by Vader at September 21, 2010 11:37 PM

---

I'd like to clear up some false information presented in this comment thread:

Costco states in its membership agreement that private firearms are not allowed in their stores. Therefore, he WAS wrong about being able to carry there, regardless of his carry permit, and had acknowledged it by signing the membership agreement. Read what you sign.

This is false.

Costco's anti-gun policy is not included in the text of the membership agreement or rules of conduct that prospective members sign when they join.

They specifically attempt to keep their anti-gun policies concealed from customers...this is also why they do not post their stores.

The policy does exist and is spelled out in the "knowledgebase" section of their web site, but you must follow a very specific and arduous route to get to it. It is not unambiguously and prominently stated on their web site and is not mentioned in the membership agreement at all.

Basically, they are an anti-gun organization, but they don't want the 80 million+ gun owners in this country to know about it because then those gun owners may choose Sam's Club instead.

The big problem is that employees are well aware of the policy. When I first found out about Costco's policy SEVERAL YEARS AGO, I inquired about it at my local Costco. The employees there readily verified that Costco has a "no guns" policy, but when I asked to see this in writing, they could not produce it. I was referred to the corporate office, which e-mailed me a statement similar to the one available in the Knowledgebase article on their web site linked above.

I complained at the time that their policy was effectively a "secret", warned them that this could create a dangerous situation, and advised them that gun owners need to be made aware of it. The issue has obviously never been resolved...with disastrous consequences.

Costco has a no guns policy that they refuse to let customers know about ahead of time but which employees are trained to enforce.

Couldn't possibly have foreseen any unintended consequences there, huh?

I hope the Scotts sue Costco into the stone age. As far as I'm concerned, Costco murdered Erik Scott. The Police were the murder weapon, but the premeditation and overt act that resulted in Mr. Scott's death are completely and totally the responsibility of Costco.

posted by Sailorcurt at September 21, 2010 11:55 PM

---

If Costco does not terminate the employees involved in this murder (especially the manager for handing over ALL copies of the video) I will be very happy to drive an extra 15 miles to Sam's.

The employees should be granted all of the benefit of doubt and due process given to Erik Scott.

This all started with the Costco employee freaking out and the manager escalating matters. Having them fired won't be much justice but it might be all that's left after the LVPD is done with it.

posted by Director at September 22, 2010 01:41 AM

---

I would love to be on the civil jury that tries this case. The Scotts would own Costco when it was over.

We've already got a situation where even the police themselves say you should not speak to them in a criminal situation without a lawyer. Now you've got them killing people who are simply doing what the law clearly allows them to do. To make it worse, it appears they're trying to cover up their crime. You know you can't trust the crooks; now it appears you can't trust the police either.

Maybe it's time to leave this country.

posted by mac at September 22, 2010 02:59 AM

---

Hopefully the NRA and other organizations will help highlight Costco's anti-gun policies which the company appears to want to hide from its customers. While I have been a Costco shopper in the past this is a big disincentive to shop there anymore.

posted by PR at September 22, 2010 08:18 AM

---

@patHMV.... a couple of things about the shooting. It was not Halloween night, it was a week prior. The family had been robbed recently. The exchange student had been told to scare people and was running toward the homeowner flailing his arms. He was shot about 5 feet from him.

posted by Roux at September 22, 2010 09:11 AM

---

I'm pretty sure that the police are legally allowed to confiscate those cellphone and video tapes as evidence.

You're improperly using a legal term: "confiscate". Read the link in the other reply, which specifically talks about the BART shooting of Oscar Grant and the aftermath of that, and you'll see that we're talking about robbery. There's no legal right for a police officer to steal your property. They can take items into evidence that are related to the crime, but unless you're committing a crime with your camera (i.e. child porn) it's not evidence.

Again, I've yet to read any case where the police stole someone's camera and did anything except delete the photos. I'd love to read about an honest cop, so feel free to send any counterexamples.

posted by Michael Chaney at September 22, 2010 10:37 AM

---

"When the time comes, if they are reluctant to make the evidence public, if evidence has been in any way mishandled, or worse, altered or destroyed, the public would be justified in drawing the most negative and damaging conclusions."

This.

If I were on the jury at the criminal trial, the most negative conclusion would be that the three police officers who shot Eric Scott should be found guilty of murder and all receive lethal injections. If on the jury at the civil trial, the most negative and damaging conclusion would be that Costco will now be known as Scottco since the late man's family would wind up owning the company. I would also award the family enough damages to raise Las Vegas property taxes for the next 20 years.

Perhaps enough if enough trials went that way it would serve as an incentive to not destroy evidence.

posted by Mark at September 22, 2010 10:56 AM

---

Alot of if, ands, and buts, but precious little facts.

I think you should wait for the inquest and for the videos to be released.

And I noticed that you ignored the Las Vegas Journals articles on Scott's drug use. His father has admitted that he took three prescription pain medications each day. Guns and prescrition pain medication don't mix.

One of his ex-wives also stated that he was addicted to pain medication and used illegal steroids.

And why was he tearing apart packages of bottled water? That is not normal behavior.

He was asked to leave and he did not. He was asked to get on the ground by the police and he went for his gun.

Unless you have some evidence and not just speculation, you are just making things up.

I am concerned about your casual disregard for the private property rights of Costco. You seem to think that they should be in the security business rather than retail sales. What training does one need to ask someone to leave, he refuses, you see his gun and you call the police. Negociation training? telephone training? Just what is needed to report someone damaging your property and refusing to leave?

posted by Federale at September 22, 2010 01:57 PM

---

Federale,

You might want to actually read some of the other accounts. When he went for his gun, he did so slowly while telling the officer that was yelling at him to "DROP IT!!!" that he was disarming himself in compliance with the officer's orders.

The fact is that he was complying with at least one of them. Problem is there were different sets of orders and he can't comply with all of them at once. You're blaming him for listening to the wrong officer.

posted by Mike T at September 22, 2010 02:51 PM

---

Las Vegas may be little more than an essentially abandoned "slum" in the not too distant future. Incidents such as this can be understood as both causal and symptomatic. It is also likely that the terminal economic decline of Las Vegas will not be considered as worthy of much note.

posted by Scott at September 22, 2010 11:45 PM

---

**************Posted by Michael Chaney at September 22, 2010 10:37 AM **************

Hey Mike,

I read the stuff at the other link. It was interesting, but I'm not gonna pretend that I know enough about this stuff to make any sort of accurate decision based off of that link, your comment, or my personal knowledge.

I mean, I'm sure you know your stuff. But *I* don't.

posted by ed at September 23, 2010 02:14 AM

---

Federale

"I think you should wait for the inquest and for the videos to be released."

That may be a long wait. I have read that the video cannot be recovered from the disks that the police confiscated from Costco. Do you have other information?

Eric Scott's ex-wife said bad things about him? Over the years I have known a number of people who have gotten divorced. In many of those cases, people said bad things about their ex-spouse. Many of those bad things turned out not to be true. You might want a more reliable source before you accept that information. Were any of the cops or Costco employees divorced? What did their ex-spouses have to say about them?

As for Costco's private property rights to exclude guns from its stores. Costco does have a "no guns" policy and its employees are told about this policy. However, Costco does not post signs to inform shoppers of this policy or make the information readily available except by digging for it. That may be an oversight on their part or it may be a deliberate decision to not lose business from gun owners. I know that they will not be getting any more business from me. Sam's Club is actually a little closer to my house.

posted by Mark at September 23, 2010 11:12 AM

---

You say "police shootings of the innocent are uncommon". I have to laugh in dusgust. Even if innocent, police will make their victims appear to be guilty, and even when they fail in doing that, the courts will always rule a police killing of an innocent person is justified. I have never in my life seen a police officer prosecuted for intentionally killing an innocent person in the course of their duties.

posted by Mike Lorrey at September 23, 2010 04:10 PM

---

It is ironic that the main piece of evidence that could prove what actually happened is a damaged hard drive from the security cameras. The police seized the hard drive and it is damaged. After holding it for over two months they announce that it is damaged. This will cast a cloud of doubts over the entire proceedings. Second, the wound to the buttocks. From the coroner's description the round entered his buttocks, went up through his bowels, and lodged in his chest. Figure out the angles. Basically someone had to more or less fire up through his rear end. How did that occur? Why? Why shoot him four times in the back as he lay on the ground? Destroyed evidence and questionable wounds.

posted by ConcernedCitizen at September 23, 2010 10:16 PM

---

Watching the court proceedings it occurred to me that Costco and the police had created an extremely dangerous situation for the customers in Costco. Once the policemen drew their weapons, pointed them at Mr. Scott, and began yelling commands they had made a mountain out of a molehill. They had created a situation with some very bad possible outcomes. Erik then had to jump through the hoops correctly or end up dead. Do we live in a free Republic? If a policeman can draw a gun on us for exercising a God-given right, bark commands, then shoot us with impunity, perhaps this is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. I feel bad that we have some policemen who are so scared they can no longer interact with the public in a rationale manner. Fortunately many areas do not have this problem and the law enforcement officers are solid citizens who act logically. Las Vegas appears, given it record of shooting unarmed citizens and citizens dropping guns, to have a big training problem.

posted by ConcernedCitizen at September 25, 2010 01:13 PM

---

I have been watching the murder of Eric Scott by Las Vegas Metro. What a scary situation. I truly belive that Officer Mosher was too aggressive in his actions. He had his weapon drawn before Eric Scott exited the building. Although Eric Scott was unstable he never had a chance to comlpy with the commands that were being yelled at him. From the testimony, he tried to show the weapon to Mosher but Mosher took this as having the weapon, which was still in its holster, being pointed at him. He took this as a danger to his life and in a few seconds murdered Eric Scott. 2 other officers joined in the execution, shooting Eric Scott 4 times in the back as he was falling to the ground. What is amazing is that no other person was shot or injured. Alot of people were within 5 feet of the shooting.

I can't believe Metro didn't handle this in a more professional manner. It was like "Ready Fire Aim". I am shocked that a professional police force would show so little control over a dangerous situation and just open fire in such close quarters. The Costco store where this shooting took place is in an upscale area of Las Vegas and many professionals were shopping there that day. One of the best witnesses was a doctor who was within 5 feet of the shooting and stated after Eric Scott was shot, no one attempted to provide aid to Eric or do CPR. They just handcuffed him and let him lay there. He was afraid to offer aid as he wittnessed what happened.

I will really be upset if the jury finds this shooting as justified. However with the current coroner inquest system, the DA's can offer any evidence and witnesses can state any opinion they want. I consider this as a sad day in Las Vegas, my home for the last 15 years.

posted by Scared Citizen at September 25, 2010 11:13 PM

---

The 911 Reporter of Costco and 3 officers should be put behind bars for the rest of their lives. How is it that the officer ,fat one, having killed before and he stated he had drawn his gun over 100 times in the past 5 years still be on the police force? He demonstrated he knew he was in trouble by having to wear body armor to the inquest.
Please Scott Family stay strong to see justice.

posted by Helen MCDuff at September 27, 2010 06:13 AM

---

� Hide Comments

---

I continue to be amazed at what an easy target Krugman makes of himself. I can't imagine why the NYT keeps him around except perhaps to say that they have an Nobel Prize winning economist on staff, though you'd think such an award might have lost some of its prestige of late. (well... that and the entire NYT Editorial staff is probably just as clueless as Krugman himself)

posted by Sean at September 21, 2010 10:44 AM

---

Paul Krugman, advisor to the infamous Enron corporation. Krugman, doing for the USA what he did for Enron.

posted by Looking Glass at September 21, 2010 11:29 AM

---

I'm sorry, is there any indication that anyone other than you is even _reading_ Paul Krugman? I certainly don't bother - there's only so much time in the day, fercrissakes...

posted by Bill Johnson at September 21, 2010 02:51 PM

---

In the future, everyone will be Goatse for 15 minutes.

posted by joh at September 24, 2010 06:18 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

I think it's time the state of Delaware got involved in this, and possible the Federal Department of Justice. It is, at the least, a case of corruption, and at the worst a matter for criminal prosecution.

posted by Alan Kellogg at September 20, 2010 07:32 PM

---

� Hide Comments

---

Good for you. I had noticed a wee bit of intensity prior to your hiatus; relax, breathe deeply, and enjoy. I'll still lurk here, and elsewhere. I enjoy what I read here.

posted by gb at September 20, 2010 09:17 AM

---

Okay, bookmarks added. Always appreciate your level-headed thoughts.

posted by HH at September 20, 2010 11:34 AM

---

I sympathize and understand completely. Been there.
I try to ignore politics and focus and something that matters. My grandparents thought it was just entertainment and it was when they were young. People were free then.

posted by Odins Acolyte at September 20, 2010 05:53 PM

---

just what i need: more places i have to check every day.....

why does it have to be about you all the time, instead of us?

/white smoke

posted by redc1c4 at September 21, 2010 01:44 AM

---

� Hide Comments