The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Man shot 7 times (5 in back) for Concela carrying in NV https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4245 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Man shot 7 times (5 in back) for Concela carrying in NV |
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives ... hp#Scene_1 Using this link since it sums up everything. Been following this for a while on some other forums. Infuriating. Analysis of a Death: The Erik Scott Shooting First, My thanks to Bob Owens, proprietor of Confederate Yankee for his invitation to guest blog on the site. I look forward to contributing essays in the future and I have often commented in the past. By way of introduction, I'm a USAF veteran, having served in SAC as a security police officer during the Cold War. I'm also a veteran of nearly two decades of civilian police service, including stints as a patrol officer, trainer of officers, firearms instructor, shift supervisor, division commander, juvenile officer, detective and SWAT operator. I'm an NRA certified instructor and am also certified by the American Small Arms Academy, Chuck Taylor's school. These days, I teach secondary English and am a professional singer, working with a well known symphony orchestra and a variety of other musical endeavors. I'm looking forward to having the kinds of informed exchanges I've often enjoyed on the site. Mike McDaniel 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. |
Author: | Müs [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Quote: 5:46 p.m. Colleen Kullberg, who was working part-time at customer demonstrations at Costco, told jurors she saw Erik Scott pull out his gun and point it at a Metro officer before officers shot him. Kullberg said as she tried to leave the store, she saw Erik Scott staring at an officer after the officer had told him to get down on the ground "at least five times." "He reached behind him and pulled out his gun and aimed it at the officer," Kullberg said. "At that time, the officer shot him." Asked to describe what Scott did as he was standing, staring at the officer. "He was like dazed. He was just looking at him. He wasn't obeying any of his commands." LV ME wrote: She also spent several minutes describing the amount of drugs and the type of drugs that Scott had in his body, which included what she said normally would be lethal levels of morphine and Zanax. However, she did say it was possible he could have become "habituated" to those amounts over a period of time, which would allow him to function normally. She said the depressants found in his body also could have slowed his functions, similarly to someone who had been using alcohol. Yes. The police were completely wrong for shooting him. /eyeroll The inquest is still ongoing. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/se ... rik-scott/ |
Author: | Raltar [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:52 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I really doubt they shot the guy just because he happened to have been carrying a concealed weapon. Police don't just shoot dudes that have guns. The guy had to have done something other than be standing there with a concealed weapon and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Until there is proof of them shooting him for no reason, that's where I stand on this. |
Author: | Aizle [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
But, but all police are jack-booted thugs! |
Author: | Müs [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Quote: Also expected to testify this morning is Shai Lierley, the security officer at Costco who called 911 to report a man was acting erratically, destroying merchandise and was possibly high on an unknown substance, said Assistant District Attorney Chris Owens in giving jurors an overview of the case. Sounds like a man was just out calmly shopping, the security guard saw his concealed, holstered weapon, and the LVMPD rushed out there to **** him right the **** up for daring to have a weapon. OP wrote: 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. What she should have done is told him to not bring his weapon out as he was under some serious levels of medication. Xanax, morphine, Oxycodone... Any reasonable person will tell you "Drugs and/or alcohol and guns DO NOT mix." This Article wrote: The incident was set into motion about 15 minutes earlier, when Costco loss-prevention supervisor Shai Lierley noticed Scott opening packages and mumbling to himself in the camping aisle. Lierley testified he saw Scott open soft-sided coolers and try to stuff stainless steel water bottles into them. Scott was talking to himself, saying something about finding a color and wondering why the bottles didn't fit into the bags, Lierley said.
The bottles didn't fit into the coolers, but that didn't stop Scott from opening identical packages of bottles and continue trying to fit them into the same cooler, Lierley said. Lierley said that after a peaceful interaction between Scott and manager Vince Lopez, he saw Scott tearing merchandise tags from multiple coolers and packages of water bottles. Lierley said he then noticed the handgun in Scott's waistband and told Lopez, who informed Scott that guns are not allowed in the store. "Next thing you know, Mr. Scott ... gets up and says, 'I'm a Green Beret. You need to check the (expletive) Constitution.' And it was just real quick, real snapped. And at that point, it made me step back because he had a firearm," Lierley said. He said most people in that situation leave the store, but Scott got defensive and argued. The employees backed off, and Lierley called police. Lierley was on the phone with a 911 dispatcher as he followed Scott and Sterner out of the store, with other shoppers. "She grabs him to help him walk out of the front, ... and she said, 'I think they're evacuating us because of you,' '' he said. At one point Scott appeared to stumble and have trouble walking straight, he said. As they reached the exit, Lierley pointed Scott out to police. Lierley said he watched as Scott pulled the gun from his waistband and raised it toward an officer, and distinctly heard someone order Scott to "drop the firearm." But Scott did not. With his left hand in the air, Scott pulled at his gun with his right hand, he said. "The weird part is he just keeps on grabbing at the gun on his hip, and he keeps on yanking at it," Lierley said. "The officer starts yelling, and the next thing you know a round goes off when Mr. Scott's hands come up." |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I suggest you post all the other eyewitness descriptions that say the police just shot him for no reason at all. People tend to make their memories fit the scenario that fits their emotions at the moment. We have conflicting eyewitness testimony (not suprising - eyewitness testimony is always pretty shitty). What we have is a man dead with rounds in his back who was confronted by an employee and not asked to leave (first thing they do if you cause a ruckus), and no video or audio released to the media (first thing thats done if cops are in the clear). Do you have the drug tox screen handy Mus? |
Author: | Müs [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Haven't seen the official report (this is actually the first I've looked into it, I usually don't pay attention to the news), but there seems to be consensus on (near lethal levels of) xanax, morphine and hydrocodone. He should not have been carrying. Or driving for that matter. Or even out in public :p And, living in Las Vegas, the LAST thing you do when the LVMPD is pointing weapons at you is pull out a gun, or make any sudden movements. They're easily startled. According to Costco, he *was* asked to leave. And he said, in essence, **** off and read the constitution. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Man shot 7 times (5 in back) for Concela carrying in NV |
Not to mention that you expect us to take seriously a source called "confederate yankee". Let's see some legitimate source; i.e. not a blog. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:29 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Müs wrote: Haven't seen the official report (this is actually the first I've looked into it, I usually don't pay attention to the news), but there seems to be consensus on (near lethal levels of) xanax, morphine and hydrocodone. He should not have been carrying. Or driving for that matter. Or even out in public :p And, living in Las Vegas, the LAST thing you do when the LVMPD is pointing weapons at you is pull out a gun, or make any sudden movements. They're easily startled. According to Costco, he *was* asked to leave. And he said, in essence, **** off and read the constitution. Its reported three different officers were shouting conflicitng orders "Drop it! (while he was not holding a weapon), "Put your hands on your head" and "get on the ground". The officer he was facing (so likely tunnel visioned on) was requesting him to drop it. He was heard saying he is removing his firearm as asked. Then he was shot. The only person claiming he was on drugs is his ex-wife. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:29 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Man shot 7 times (5 in back) for Concela carrying in NV |
Diamondeye wrote: Not to mention that you expect us to take seriously a source called "confederate yankee". Let's see some legitimate source; i.e. not a blog. http://www.google.com/search?q=erik+sco ... lz=1I7GGIH Have fun. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:39 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Man shot 7 times (5 in back) for Concela carrying in NV |
Elmarnieh wrote: Diamondeye wrote: Not to mention that you expect us to take seriously a source called "confederate yankee". Let's see some legitimate source; i.e. not a blog. http://www.google.com/search?q=erik+sco ... lz=1I7GGIH Have fun. Your thread, your issue, it's your work to do. If you didn't insist on searching for sources that tell you what you like hearing, you wouldn't have this problem. |
Author: | Müs [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: Müs wrote: Haven't seen the official report (this is actually the first I've looked into it, I usually don't pay attention to the news), but there seems to be consensus on (near lethal levels of) xanax, morphine and hydrocodone. He should not have been carrying. Or driving for that matter. Or even out in public :p And, living in Las Vegas, the LAST thing you do when the LVMPD is pointing weapons at you is pull out a gun, or make any sudden movements. They're easily startled. According to Costco, he *was* asked to leave. And he said, in essence, **** off and read the constitution. Its reported three different officers were shouting conflicitng orders "Drop it! (while he was not holding a weapon), "Put your hands on your head" and "get on the ground". The officer he was facing (so likely tunnel visioned on) was requesting him to drop it. He was heard saying he is removing his firearm as asked. Then he was shot. The only person claiming he was on drugs is his ex-wife. You obviously haven't done any of your own reading on this. Especially the reporting of the inquest. Perhaps you should read that, and then come back and talk about it. http://www.lvrj.com/news/darker-details ... ml?ref=619 http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/se ... rik-scott/ http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/se ... ption-dru/ http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13224120/ ... uest-day-5 That should get you started. Also, the 911 calls: http://www.reviewjournal.com/media/audi ... scott1.mp3 http://www.reviewjournal.com/media/audi ... scott2.mp3 This is good also: http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13212835/ ... rs-inquest Quote: Several Costco employees also testified. Linda Bem, a Costco employee, said she signed up Scott and Sterner for a new membership. She said Scott was acting confused and that she worried for his mental health. Bem said Scott originally tried to sign up for a business membership, but appeared to have a hard time understanding the form. He then changed his mind and signed up for a personal membership.
Bem also said Scott attempted to fill out the membership form, but his handwriting was illegible. He then asked Sterner to fill out the form for him. Two other Costco employees also testified saying Scott appeared to be under the influence of drugs. |
Author: | Müs [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:53 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
In addition, From a blog post by Erik's father where he lists the medications (32 of them) that Erik was taking, he mentioned a Dr. Pierce, from the Forever Ageless Clinic. Dr. Pierce has denied ever treating Erik. I wonder where Erik's father would get the idea that Dr. Pierce had treated Erik... Then I read that his GF had been terminated from Forever Ageless' employ. I wonder if that had anything to do with stolen scrip pads...? Also, the fact that she has not responded to the subpoena to testify in the inquest has any bearing on this... Something smells here methinks. Further In Addition: From NRS 202.3657: Quote: (d) Has habitually used intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance to the extent that his normal faculties are impaired. He should NOT have been carrying. Even more In Addition: Watch the Inquest online: http://www.fox5vegas.com/video/24993636 ... N=51102124 |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
So he was 5-20 times the lethal level? Doesn't that idea raise some red flags with anyone? |
Author: | Müs [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:59 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Opiates are interesting. Someone in pain can develop a tolerance to them, and require more and more of the drug. In addition, just like with Heroin or other narcotics, addicts can need more and more to receive the same effect of the drug. So someone that's healthy and not addicted, and has no previous tolerance for the drug, that lethal level is much much lower. Pharmacology is cool |
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:26 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: So he was 5-20 times the lethal level? Doesn't that idea raise some red flags with anyone? like that he shouldn't have been carrying a gun? |
Author: | Stathol [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:52 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: So he was 5-20 times the lethal level? Doesn't that idea raise some red flags with anyone? No, not really. First of all, there's really no such thing as a "lethal level" in any absolute sense, whether we're talking about narcotics or plutonium. There are only statistical probabilities. Which brings us to the second issue -- what do you mean by "lethal level"? There are quite a few different technical definitions for this, and even more non-technical. The most likely meaning would be LD50 -- the dosage required to kill 50% of the test subjects in a clinical study within the time parameters established for the trial. LD50 for an interval of death within 5 minutes is quite different than LD50 for death within 24 hours, etc. Either way, it's not at all surprising that, while a given dose might kill 50% of test subjects, some individuals (especially outside of a controlled experimental environment) may well tolerate levels far in excess of LD50. Just because X mg will kill 50% of the people doesn't mean that 2X will kill 100%. That's not how this works. And it's especially not how it works with opiates, as others have already pointed out. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:22 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Thanks for the additional info guys. I'll read up on all of them tonight hopefully. |
Author: | Ladas [ Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:27 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Aside from the possible point of multiple police telling the man to do conflicting, and potentially detrimental (to his health) actions, it appears the police responded appropriately. This is of course, based upon reading what Elmo posted/linked versus what was provided by others. |
Author: | Müs [ Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:52 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Ladas wrote: Aside from the possible point of multiple police telling the man to do conflicting, and potentially detrimental (to his health) actions, it appears the police responded appropriately. This is of course, based upon reading what Elmo posted/linked versus what was provided by others. As a CCW holder, one of the first things you're told is to never let your weapon be seen. Its "Concealed" carry for a reason. The second thing is to never draw it on the police. Keep your hands away from your body, and hug you some concrete. And fully expect the knee in the back and the handcuffs. Don't disarm yourself, let the police do that. Was the shooting tragic? Yes. Was it preventable? Yes. Were the police wrong? No. Yes, Mr. Scott was a WP grad, and I am thankful for his service. But if all the tox reports and testimony are correct and true, he had no business carrying a firearm on that day. And I think you'll come to about the same conclusion Elmo. |
Author: | Ladas [ Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:56 am ] |
Post subject: | |
It was more of a general comment about conflicting orders from police. I've seen, and been party to, situations where two, or more, officers gave orders in which it was impossible to comply with both. None of them were life threatening, nor in a state of heightened anxiety such as this. However, if he was shot in back 5 times, and was wearing a coat, and the officer he was facing was giving him directions that caused motions the officer behind took to be a threat... well, its bad. Did it happen in this, no idea. It was just a general comment. |
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:12 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Ladas wrote: It was more of a general comment about conflicting orders from police. I've seen, and been party to, situations where two, or more, officers gave orders in which it was impossible to comply with both. None of them were life threatening, nor in a state of heightened anxiety such as this. However, if he was shot in back 5 times, and was wearing a coat, and the officer he was facing was giving him directions that caused motions the officer behind took to be a threat... well, its bad. Did it happen in this, no idea. It was just a general comment. I recently had two different police officers, in the same intersection, giving conflicting direction that almost got me into an accident. Then, one threatened to arrest me for what I yelled out the window at him. It got interesting. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:17 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: Ladas wrote: It was more of a general comment about conflicting orders from police. I've seen, and been party to, situations where two, or more, officers gave orders in which it was impossible to comply with both. None of them were life threatening, nor in a state of heightened anxiety such as this. However, if he was shot in back 5 times, and was wearing a coat, and the officer he was facing was giving him directions that caused motions the officer behind took to be a threat... well, its bad. Did it happen in this, no idea. It was just a general comment. I recently had two different police officers, in the same intersection, giving conflicting direction that almost got me into an accident. Then, one threatened to arrest me for what I yelled out the window at him. It got interesting. There's problems on that shift or in that department when this happens. It could be poor training, insufficient training, a poor supervisor, or other interpersonal issues. One person giving directions is pretty basic. |
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:21 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Diamondeye wrote: Arathain Kelvar wrote: Ladas wrote: It was more of a general comment about conflicting orders from police. I've seen, and been party to, situations where two, or more, officers gave orders in which it was impossible to comply with both. None of them were life threatening, nor in a state of heightened anxiety such as this. However, if he was shot in back 5 times, and was wearing a coat, and the officer he was facing was giving him directions that caused motions the officer behind took to be a threat... well, its bad. Did it happen in this, no idea. It was just a general comment. I recently had two different police officers, in the same intersection, giving conflicting direction that almost got me into an accident. Then, one threatened to arrest me for what I yelled out the window at him. It got interesting. There's problems on that shift or in that department when this happens. It could be poor training, insufficient training, a poor supervisor, or other interpersonal issues. One person giving directions is pretty basic. I agree, though I phrased this to him a bit differently. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |