Originally Posted by Libelle201B

This thread is progressing into nothing more than a platform for some to suggest that those carrying guns are the real arbitrators of justice.

No one except you, has even mildly suggested that

Originally Posted by DLGjunkyard

Dead is dead. Right or wrong, his weapon worked against him.

btw cops overreact because their jobs are becoming a death sentence if they dont.

The opinion that the cops overreacted seems to be held by folks with a very obvious bias and is not supported by the facts. The resultant inquiry absolved them of any wrongdoings and two of the three policemen involved directly with the shooting were later honoured by a national police organization.

Originally Posted by wrightme

It isn't a splitting of hairs, nor is it an escape clause. It is the operation of trespass law.

"Ask" is a request. It isn't a requirement to acquiesce to a request. Under trespass law, no crime is broken by failure to leave upon request. And, contrary to what some here think, it is quite possible to be polite, responsible, and not acquiesce to such request.

"Demand" isn't a request. Had the CostCo representative demanded that Erik leave, then at that point, he must leave, or be in violation of trespass law. THAT is the point where the rights of the business owner trump the rights of the person being trespassed, not earlier. In this case, by overstating the 'need' for LE, CostCo violated Erik Scott's rights.

Yep, that'll be the splitting of hairs that I was referring to. If the ultimate victim was asked to leave, as reported in the horribly written article in the OP then his response ought to have been to leave, not to kick off as described.

Originally Posted by wrightme

No, it is accurate to point out that your desired 'need' or 'justification' isn't required.

LOL, I answered your questions, there was no need or justification there either.

Originally Posted by Libelle201B

This thread is progressing into nothing more than a platform for some to suggest that those carrying guns are the real arbitrators of justice.

Who is doing that?

It is more that it has throughout been a thread where those who carry guns are told to be 'getting what they deserve' if they get shot by cops.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

No one except you, has even mildly suggested that

I'm glad I may have been the first.

Originally Posted by leccyflyer

Yep, that'll be the splitting of hairs that I was referring to. If the ultimate victim was asked to leave, as reported in the horribly written article in the OP then his response ought to have been to leave, not to kick off as described.

How is a failure to leave turned into 'kick off as described?'

Seriously, it isn't 'splitting hairs' to point out that a request isn't a demand. And, given that the manager did seem okay when Erik stated that he was almost done shopping, where is the 'need' to leave, but to somehow presciently avert the unknown overreaction?

Originally Posted by Sport Flyer

The opinion that the cops overreacted seems to be held by folks with a very obvious bias and is not supported by the facts

Say what? A person was shot dead for not figuring out which demand to follow? And that is somehow not an overreaction?

Originally Posted by Libelle201B

I'm glad I may have been the first.

Why? Is that what you think?

Do you feel that armed citizens are arbiters of justice?

Originally Posted by Libelle201B

LOL, I answered your questions, there was no need or justification there either.

Your view was all about wanting to discover or need 'justification.'

Originally Posted by wrightme

No, the firearm did nothing. Overreactions drove events.



Their jobs have always been that way. That doesn't justify overreactions.

Do you think that might have something to do with all these gun happy cops?

Originally Posted by wrightme

Say what? A person was shot dead for not figuring out which demand to follow? And that is somehow not an overreaction?

Which inquiry determined there was an overreaction? Did the police officers involved face discipline for their overreaction?

Sorry the dog biting incident was previous to the shooting.

Originally Posted by wrightme

How is a failure to leave turned into 'kick off as described?'

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.

Seriously, it isn't 'splitting hairs' to point out that a request isn't a demand. And, given that the manager did seem okay when Erik stated that he was almost done shopping, where is the 'need' to leave, but to somehow presciently avert the unknown overreaction?

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.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

So, exactly why was Erik, shot after the officer's dog bit him?

http://www.lasvegassun.com/photos/ga...--day-2/69010/

http://www.lasvegassun.com/photos/ga...--day-2/69011/ I would think that "honoring" officers that can not even control their dogs is unwarranted.

Sounds more like cop assisted suicide.