-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Shooting in Las Vegas
- Thread starter T(1)of(3)
- Start date
n1oty
NES Member
I am not so surprised at the result, as I am with the speed with which they came back with the verdict. I tried to hone in on the questions the jurors were asking in order to get a sense of the issues at play in their minds. Let's face it, questions from the "other interested parties" may or may not sway the jurors, but they give no sense of the thought process of the jurors.
Over the past two days, juror questions revolved hard around the failure to secure the DVR equipment immediately, whether Scott had sufficient time to comprehend the police instructions prior to the shooting and Chain of Custody issues about the DVR equipment. Well, I was not surprised about the issue of Chain of Custody, since I broached that subject myself a few days ago. I knew they asked questions about the firearm being found in its holster. I was really surprised that no questions came up about the shot up the ass!!
I figured from the questions they were asking about Chain of Custody alone that they would deliberate at least a few hours and possibly into tomorrow, but I was wrong. Anyway, the Sheriff must have sensed a slam-dunk as he scheduled a press conference for tomorrow morning before the jury even got the case.
Over the past two days, juror questions revolved hard around the failure to secure the DVR equipment immediately, whether Scott had sufficient time to comprehend the police instructions prior to the shooting and Chain of Custody issues about the DVR equipment. Well, I was not surprised about the issue of Chain of Custody, since I broached that subject myself a few days ago. I knew they asked questions about the firearm being found in its holster. I was really surprised that no questions came up about the shot up the ass!!
I figured from the questions they were asking about Chain of Custody alone that they would deliberate at least a few hours and possibly into tomorrow, but I was wrong. Anyway, the Sheriff must have sensed a slam-dunk as he scheduled a press conference for tomorrow morning before the jury even got the case.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
I am telling you, it's the "drugs". They made him out to be a drug addict and all logic went out the window. He was no longer the upstanding citizen but a drug addled automaton.
n1oty
NES Member
After sleeping on this, I believe the PD, the DA and the media will run away from this whole episode. Although technically the DA's office is supposedly neutral in the inquest process, because it is supposed to be investigatory and not prosecutorial, anyone willing to listen with an open mind could easily detect hints of bias, depending on the witness on the stand. Those eyewitnesses who saw the firearm pointed at the officer, especially those stating it was OUT of the holster (which we know to be false), were treated with kid gloves and leading questions. Those who contradicted the official version of events, such as the lawyer who stated the follow on shots by the other two officers were "gratuitous violence" were savagely attacked by the DA's office.
I would have thought that the jurors would have spent more than an hour-and-a-half just on the deceased man's character and medication history, but again, I was wrong. From what I can gather thus far, Scott was badly injured in practice parachute jumps while in the Army, training that nearly every West Point cadet goes through.
I think much more will come out in the process of the civil suits that will now unfold. I did notice throughout that the PD was more than happy to lay all the source's of the information they were receiving at Costco's feet. I suspect that was a design to throw Costco under the bus at the civil proceedings.
I would have thought that the jurors would have spent more than an hour-and-a-half just on the deceased man's character and medication history, but again, I was wrong. From what I can gather thus far, Scott was badly injured in practice parachute jumps while in the Army, training that nearly every West Point cadet goes through.
I think much more will come out in the process of the civil suits that will now unfold. I did notice throughout that the PD was more than happy to lay all the source's of the information they were receiving at Costco's feet. I suspect that was a design to throw Costco under the bus at the civil proceedings.
n1oty
NES Member
Apparently, the Sheriff is sweating enough over this, and a couple of other recent troubled shootings that he announced a major change in departmental investigations of all use-of-force incidents, not just shootings. Here's the link:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/29/new-metro-police-board-investigate-use-force-incid/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/29/new-metro-police-board-investigate-use-force-incid/
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Wow... I actually am shocked. I hope it is a serious statement and not meant as PR cover.
n1oty
NES Member
Too soon to tell. BTW, for those interested in viewing the crime scene photo of Scott's firearm, in it's holster on the ground after the shooting, here's a link to one of the LV papers with that pic:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/
I am really starting to believe that Mosher was full of sh** when he testified that he owned the same holster and anyone could easily fire the weapon while contained in this holster. I certainly wouldn't want that impairment in a firefight. For a guy who vividly described what Scott was wearing and even commented on his supposedly bloodshot eyes, I have trouble with him not spotting the holster.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/
I am really starting to believe that Mosher was full of sh** when he testified that he owned the same holster and anyone could easily fire the weapon while contained in this holster. I certainly wouldn't want that impairment in a firefight. For a guy who vividly described what Scott was wearing and even commented on his supposedly bloodshot eyes, I have trouble with him not spotting the holster.
Where did it say he was on meth in the "medical report?" I am not a drug expert and I believe the drug is manufactured using other over the counter drugs (thus the reason for ID for the Robotussin) So is that what your referring too? Even still it doesn't mean he was on a street drug. Street drugs or prescribed is still a attack on his character just like reporting one of the cops has a prior fatal shooting in 2006.
Remember when cops wore blue and not black? When the cruisers where white or white and blue. Now its black, grey, traditional black and white. and all the younger cops (some older) all wear tactical pants now. It's a mindset "to protect and serve" but now it's "Law Enforcement" one is more aggressive than the other.
I am not saying one way is more right than the other. Just think that ALL party's included in this tragedy made mistakes. Honestly the cops "losing" or the camera's being "off" or the hard drive back-ups being damaged is really really not sitting well with me. FINE don't release it to media. Atleast let a judge or DA look at it. They just don't look good with all that surveillance footage being mis-handled or denied access too....
LEO or CCW you have to follow laws and COMMON SENSE. Don't reach. It's all about hands , keep'em up and in view and don't flinch it might be your last. IF anything when trying to deal with multiple commands is stand there still hands up not moving, more than likely you'll be getting taken down forcefully from LEO or worse from a DARE I say the words "trigger happy" LEO shot.
Or he knew that the press would have questions and would want to talk to him.
How do we know this to be false?
Rightfully so IMO. The statement itself is biased and implies the media BS that one or two shots will always end the fight.
I think this is a good thing.
This is where things start to make a little more sense to me. Check out the photo album in the below link.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/photos/galleries/2010/sep/27/erik-scott-coroners-inquest---day-5/
In photo 1 of 23 a stainless Ruger LCP is being held up.
Photo 19 of 23 has a picture of the back of Scott's permit, which states which guns he's allowed to carry. While a KelTec P3AT is listed, an LCP is not. Nevada law only allows you to carry guns that are listed on your permit.
Photo 20 of 23 shows a Blackhawk IWB holster, presumably attached to Scott's pants.
In photo 22 of 23 a Kimber 1911 is being held up, presumably the one on the permit.
Weren't there early reports that Scott was carrying two guns? Which one did he point at/draw on the officers? Was there a picture of the LCP pocket holster that I'm missing? Was there any commentary about him carrying a gun that wasn't listed on his permit?
If a gun is in a holster where the gun can be fired from inside it ATF considers it an AOW. Plenty of people sell these holsters online though, and I'd imagine many unknowing gun owners carry with them. There's also a device made for the Ruger LCP which is technically not a pocket holster, but allows the gun to be fired from inside it.
Something like that or the AOW ones would still be a threat.
Now I'd really like to read some of the documents pertaining to this case myself.
Last edited:
n1oty
NES Member
The smaller pistol was not in play at the time of the shooting, but was found subsequently by the ambulance crew, presumably as they stripped Scott down. The Kimber is the firearm identified by the PD and witnesses as the only firearm they saw and had an issue with at the time of the shooting. There is a very clear evidentiary photograph of that Kimber on the ground at Costco in its holster. I even noted that it was not cocked-and-locked. Hammer was down which is actually typical of military training from that era. I was required to carry that way with the MP's.
As far as seeing more documentation, I'm sure that will come out in the announced civil suits. After actually listening to most of the testimony and observing the exhibits presented at the inquest (the internet is a beautiful thing for streaming audio/video), I'm fairly certain that only the surface has been scratched.
As far as seeing more documentation, I'm sure that will come out in the announced civil suits. After actually listening to most of the testimony and observing the exhibits presented at the inquest (the internet is a beautiful thing for streaming audio/video), I'm fairly certain that only the surface has been scratched.
Or he knew that the press would have questions and would want to talk to him.
How do we know this to be false?
Rightfully so IMO. The statement itself is biased and implies the media BS that one or two shots will always end the fight.
I think this is a good thing.
This is where things start to make a little more sense to me. Check out the photo album in the below link.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/photos/galleries/2010/sep/27/erik-scott-coroners-inquest---day-5/
In photo 1 of 23 a stainless Ruger LCP is being held up.
Photo 19 of 23 has a picture of the back of Scott's permit, which states which guns he's allowed to carry. While a KelTec P3AT is listed, an LCP is not. Nevada law only allows you to carry guns that are listed on your permit.
Photo 20 of 23 shows a Blackhawk IWB holster, presumably attached to Scott's pants.
In photo 22 of 23 a Kimber 1911 is being held up, presumably the one on the permit.
Weren't there early reports that Scott was carrying two guns? Which one did he point at/draw on the officers? Was there a picture of the LCP pocket holster that I'm missing? Was there any commentary about him carrying a gun that wasn't listed on his permit?
If a gun is in a holster where the gun can be fired from inside it ATF considers it an AOW. Plenty of people sell these holsters online though, and I'd imagine many unknowing gun owners carry with them. There's also a device made for the Ruger LCP which is technically not a pocket holster, but allows the gun to be fired from inside it.
Something like that or the AOW ones would still be a threat.
Now I'd really like to read some of the documents pertaining to this case myself.
n1oty
NES Member
One of the reasons that I do not put full faith and credence into the course and findings of this inquest is due to the presentation being essentially one-sided. We do know, however, that Scott had documented injuries that required pain management. The only issue I have with Scott's decision to carry is that his particular medications had to cloud his judgement and reaction to some degree. I am not prepared to speculate on how badly he was impaired. As I stated earlier, I do not believe that I would exercise my 2A rights under such conditions, absent some particularly exigent circumstance. However, such impairment does not mean all fault lies with Scott. A poor decision by an otherwise law-abiding citizen should not translate to being shot at the entrance of Costco.
The real problem with any one-sided hearing, though, is that you are not going to get to the complete truth, even when that side is presented by a governmental agency. That has been proved time and time again. In this case, the government went all out to show that Scott was a drug addled and troubled person with a gun who was "out of it" as Mosher testified, almost as if he DESERVED to be shot down. OK, so how does that comport with facts. Well, we know that Scott graduated from West Point and went on to earn a Master's Degree (although the name of that school escapes me for a moment). We know he had a successful real estate career before the economic bust. We know he had a successful, current career as a medical device salesman. The very people who worked with him day after day, and would therefore know best if Scott had a drug problem, were never brought in to the inquest. You KNOW they would have been interviewed after the shooting about that very subject by the police. They weren't brought in because their testimony would have stated that Scott was a talented, hard working taxpayer and they had no hint of a drug problem. Even the three doctor's who actually treated Scott stated that he was not a pill-seeker, although one of the three felt he had developed a dependence on hydrocodone.
Interestingly, I read another Las Vegas news report saying that the county commissioners are reviewing the inquest process and one of the proposals is to drug test involved officers immediately after any shootings. I'll post the link later, unless someone else spots it and posts it.
The real problem with any one-sided hearing, though, is that you are not going to get to the complete truth, even when that side is presented by a governmental agency. That has been proved time and time again. In this case, the government went all out to show that Scott was a drug addled and troubled person with a gun who was "out of it" as Mosher testified, almost as if he DESERVED to be shot down. OK, so how does that comport with facts. Well, we know that Scott graduated from West Point and went on to earn a Master's Degree (although the name of that school escapes me for a moment). We know he had a successful real estate career before the economic bust. We know he had a successful, current career as a medical device salesman. The very people who worked with him day after day, and would therefore know best if Scott had a drug problem, were never brought in to the inquest. You KNOW they would have been interviewed after the shooting about that very subject by the police. They weren't brought in because their testimony would have stated that Scott was a talented, hard working taxpayer and they had no hint of a drug problem. Even the three doctor's who actually treated Scott stated that he was not a pill-seeker, although one of the three felt he had developed a dependence on hydrocodone.
Interestingly, I read another Las Vegas news report saying that the county commissioners are reviewing the inquest process and one of the proposals is to drug test involved officers immediately after any shootings. I'll post the link later, unless someone else spots it and posts it.
That's certainly something to raise and eyebrow, and should be looked at. I know nothing about this area geographically or demographically, though. It could also mean he's assigned to a really crappy area, I would think. After all, there are more shootings in Mattapan than Nantucket.
n1oty
NES Member
True, however, I have been told that Mosher works in NWAC (North-West Area Command), that this shooting occurred in NWAC and that NWAC is one of the nicer sections of Las Vegas. Be aware, however, that I have NOT verified that information and I have no personal knowledge of Las Vegas.
The firearm pictured is likely a sub-compact Kimber, no? (I'm looking at the Kimber grip safety, size of the slide serrations, and hammer). That means traditional 1911; single-action only. The hammer is down. It's probably in Condition 3. EDIT: Oops, too slow. Not the first to notice this!
I think that given the testimony, the inquest jury came to the right conclusion. Everyone seems to agree that he could have been removing the holster from his belt. Oops.
I think that given the testimony, the inquest jury came to the right conclusion. Everyone seems to agree that he could have been removing the holster from his belt. Oops.
Last edited:
That was more than likely a picture of his empty gun after it had been cleared. There's no way they're leaving a live gun on the ground next to the guy they just shot in the middle of a crowd of people while they wait for someone to get a camera.
Can anyone ID the holster that I mentioned in my previous post that was clipped IWB on him? It says Blackhawk on it, but I can't find any Blackhawk holster that looks like that, especially not that kind of belt clip. Presumably it's for the LCP? It looks like much better quality than the cheesy Blackhawk IWB the Kimber is pictured in.
Not uncommon, and a good policy IMO.
He does work NWAC, it is the nicest section. FYI, he only had one shooting before this, for a total of two (not 3), but in the prior one he shot a felon to defend another officer.
n1oty
NES Member
The testimony about that photograph was that it was not touched until the photo was taken, so supposedly that is how it laid on the ground prior to clearing, but I'm not vouching for the accuracy of their testimony![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
.
Mosher's own testimony was that he has been involved in three shootings, two of which (including this one) were fatal. Sorry, I don't know why there is confusion on the number of shootings. I merely reported his testimony.
.Mosher's own testimony was that he has been involved in three shootings, two of which (including this one) were fatal. Sorry, I don't know why there is confusion on the number of shootings. I merely reported his testimony.
RichM
Retired Army Veteran
John, thanks for keeping up with this and reporting on a timely basis... I'm sure that we'll be following this for years, as I see a "wrongful death" lawsuit (a la OJ) in the near future... I'm just clairvoyant that way ![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
kimmie1911
NES Member
Just curious - when I renewed my LTC 4 years ago in Boston, a guy named Mosher was the licensing authority. Same guy?
namedpipes
NES Member
No. You're alive.
n1oty
NES Member
I don't think so. I listened to Mosher's testimony live and he specifically stated, when asked by the DA about prior LEO experience, that he worked for Mass DOC and was a Mass Special State Police Officer.
n1oty
NES Member
Bear in mind that I have been completely out of the LEO side of things for quite awhile and am unaware of the current powers that are imbued to the various flavors of law enforcement. I do know that full-time Mass Dept of Corrections personnel were, at least back in the 80's, also sworn as Special State Police Officer's, which is something very different from a State Police Officer. I suspect that you may be confusing the two.
I can definately state that every Costco I've been in while in Arizona has a BOLD sign out front saying no firearms allowed.
As for the rest of the story, it seems like 'mistakes' were made all around and someone paid with his life.
namedpipes
NES Member
When did they move Las Vegas?!
n1oty
NES Member
You must have missed the actual inquest. The Costco store manager testified that he interacted with Scott, that he advised him that Costco had a no-gun policy, that he specifically did NOT ask him to leave and that the Summerlin Costco did NOT have any signs posted regarding a no-gun policy. Given the above information from the actual inquest and the fact that this testimony was reported here just days ago, I fail to see the relevance of Costco signage in Arizona.
Similar threads
