Originally Posted by Sport Flyer

Which inquiry determined there was an overreaction?

Say what? I didn't claim that an inquiry determined such.

Do you believe that responding as if there was an 'active shooter' event was a valid method for the events?

Originally Posted by SF

Did the police officers involved face discipline for their overreaction?

Nope. The internal inquiry absolved the officers.



I have been clear. CostCo overstated the incident, presenting a false view to LE. LE responded with a much greater response than necessary for a person who wasn't presenting a threat to anyone in the store, except that he didn't acquiesce to a request to leave.

Originally Posted by leccyflyer

Read the article in the OP. On being asked to leave by the "wannabe cop" the ultimate victim became engaged in a heated discussion. That is what is described as kicking off.



You asked if the ultimate victim was asked to leave the premises. I posted the quote from the article, demonstrating that he was asked to leave.

If you are basing your defence of his contribution to the incident as being without fault on the difference between being asked to leave and being told to leave then it is your choice to do so. The end result is that it sounds like the guy was being a jerk on being asked to leave and chose to argue the toss instead of just leaving. A case of poor judgement on his part.

To you, it sounds like the guy was being a jerk. That doesn't mean he was being a jerk. Plus, I do not limit my knowledge of the event to that article. Direct eye-witnesses of the interaction were not alarmed at the interaction, as the 'heated argument' would lead you to believe.

Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp

Sounds more like cop assisted suicide.

Huh? How so? He was shopping with his girlfriend. How does that sound more like 'cop assisted suicide?'

Originally Posted by wrightme

Huh? How so? He was shopping with his girlfriend. How does that sound more like 'cop assisted suicide?'

He pointed his gun at an officer.

Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp

Sounds more like cop assisted suicide.

I found out that it was a previous incident. But I think the police were irresponsible and never should have been commended for their actions.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010...ted-gun-didnt/

Scott’s family has been openly critical of the inquest process. Following Thursday’s proceedings, their attorney, Ross Goodman, spoke with reporters about Mosher’s testimony.

“What you heard today was the best that the state has to offer. They cherry picked their witnesses,” Goodman said. “And officer Mosher said a .45-caliber gun was in the holster on the ground.”

“So how could he have pulled his gun out and pointed it at anybody? In fact, what you heard today is that Erik Scott was leisurely walking out. He wasn’t posing a threat to anybody; he didn’t make any aggressive movements.”

Goodman said that Mosher didn’t remember what he instructed Scott to do until he was reminded by the prosecutor with the audio of Lierley, who was telling a 911 dispatcher what was happening.

“In fact, he instructed Erik Scott to drop the gun,” Goodman said. “So Erik Scott apparently took out the holster with the gun in it and it fell on the ground.

“Mosher’s going to remember whatever he wants to remember. The fact of the matter was that Erik Scott was surrounded by three officers. He turned around. He was compliant, according to officer Mosher. He was told to drop the gun and he did exactly that.”

Originally Posted by wrightme

Say what? I didn't claim that an inquiry determined such.

So your claim that the cops overreacted is just an unfounded opinion. Good of you to finally admit that.

I have been clear. CostCo overstated the incident, presenting a false view to LE...

Then you'd think the family would at least have grounds for a wrongful death lawsuit.

Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp

He pointed his gun at an officer.

While still in the holster?

Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp

He pointed his gun at an officer.

You were there?


The reports I read were that he allegedly did so. Other witnesses stated that he removed the firearm from his belt, with it still in its holster. And, the CostCo surveillance cameras conveniently failed at the critical time.

Originally Posted by Sport Flyer

So your claim that the cops overreacted is just an unfounded opinion. Good of you to finally admit that.

No, it isn't 'unfounded.' It isn't something that an inquiry determined. It is founded upon the reports of what happened inside the store, which didn't even alarm shoppers who directly witnessed the interactions.

Originally Posted by SF

Then you'd think the family would at least have grounds for a wrongful death lawsuit.

Yes. They filed one. After the results of the inquest were released, they decided it wasn't useful to fight that battle.

The real question is:will this happen again? Of course it will. If you choose to carry a weapon expect to have weapon related troubles. It happens so often it should be obvious by now.

Originally Posted by DLGjunkyard

The real question is:will this happen again? Of course it will. If you choose to carry a weapon expect to have weapon related troubles. It happens so often it should be obvious by now.

Actually, it doesn't happen so often. In fact, people DO open carry in Las Vegas, on the strip, DAILY without trouble.

Where are these reports of 'it happens so often?'


Police shootings happen a lot, and it doesn't require the victim being armed.

Originally Posted by wrightme

Yes. They filed one. After the results of the inquest were released, they decided it wasn't useful to fight that battle.

But later dropped it despite the fact it has a much lower standard of proof than a criminal case.

Originally Posted by wrightme

To you, it sounds like the guy was being a jerk. That doesn't mean he was being a jerk. Plus, I do not limit my knowledge of the event to that article. Direct eye-witnesses of the interaction were not alarmed at the interaction, as the 'heated argument' would lead you to believe.

Just going by the OP's article the getting into an argument over being asked to leave is definitely being jerky.

As it happens I was in Costco today. Didn't see any guns.. It was packed out to the gunwales though. No-one got shot. The Loss Prevention dude was a gal this week. The prescription sunglasses -the reason for going on a Sunday (never again) were hugely over-priced. That's Costco for you though - good for some things, horrible for others. They never have any tonic water. Weird.

Originally Posted by Sport Flyer

But later dropped it despite the fact it has a much lower standard of proof than a criminal case.

Correct. As was their choice. Given the outcome of the inquiry, I tend to agree with their choice. Lacking video from the store, it would still be a struggle to prove a case.

TLs Interview with Erik Scott's Father (26 min 33 sec)

Don't bother with the vitriol at the beginning, I didn't.

Start at 6:30 for Erik's father's comments.


Interesting! At 9:05, he makes a direct reference to the video. (I am listening to this for the first time as I type this).


Before 10:30 in the audio, he makes reference to the fact that metro viewed the video, and didn't seize it. And it got deleted.


So far, I have listened to 14:50. It is the first time I have heard much of this, and it sure doesn't do a thing to change my opinion.

Originally Posted by Sport Flyer

But later dropped it despite the fact it has a much lower standard of proof than a criminal case.

Here's the reason they gave:

http://erikbscottmemorialblog.blogspot.com/

The family asked the court to dismiss the case after the defendants asserted “qualified immunity,” which shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual’s federal constitutional rights and “puts a brick on the scales of justice” against plaintiffs, Scott says.
Even if his family prevailed at the trial court level, the verdict would have been appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which “has an almost unbroken record of finding for police officers under qualified immunity,” he says.