Shooting in Las Vegas

Really? There are certainly many pain medications with codeine. There are certainly many allergy drugs with pseudoephedrine (e.g., Sudafed). But as an allergy sufferer, I've never been prescribed anything with codeine for my allergies. I would not be surprised if he was prescribed codeine for his back, and the ephedrine could have come from over the counter Sudafed. Ephedrine can also be found in some supplements.


I assume you are being sarcastic.

Nucofed and yes I was being sarcastic.
 
Removed. I don't have a horse in this fight.

EDIT: I think I have the science to determine if the presence of amphetamines implies the presence of methamphetamine. My Boolean logic is quite good. That's a fact.
 
Last edited:
My mistake was saying the word "meth" vs saying amphetamine, of which there are many types, a few of which you listed

This is my point. "Meth" implies that Scott was involved in illegal activities at the time of the shooting, which is not in evidence, and could greatly influence the outcome, rightly or not.

EDIT: Backing away. Sorry this got heated, Will. I simply didn't think your statement that the decedent was a meth-head, (and the resulting implications of responsibility for his death) was accurate.
 
Last edited:
Following up after today's testimony: The 911 calling witness today stated that Scott was acting erratically, talking to himself and unable to walk straight. He is saying that the police grabbed Scott, then Scott pushed away and drew. From the way he described it, it sounded almost like a small melee. This is the first time we've heard the police had laid hands on him before the shots, but not the first time we've heard he drew.

I'm pretty darn confused at this point. Will Brink may well be right; I'd very much like the video to materialize.
 
Following up after today's testimony: The 911 calling witness today stated that Scott was acting erratically, talking to himself and unable to walk straight. He is saying that the police grabbed Scott, then Scott pushed away and drew. From the way he described it, it sounded almost like a small melee. This is the first time we've heard the police had laid hands on him before the shots, but not the first time we've heard he drew.

I'm pretty darn confused at this point. Will Brink may well be right; I'd very much like the video to materialize.
The witness statements are contradictory, and the 911 caller has more than a little motive to justify his actions. No, I'm not saying he's lying -- he might be telling the truth, he might be lying, or he might be misremembering. We just don't know until we see the video.
 
The witness statements are contradictory, and the 911 caller has more than a little motive to justify his actions. No, I'm not saying he's lying -- he might be telling the truth, he might be lying, or he might be misremembering. We just don't know until we see the video.

At least, I'm suspicious of the claim that there was a small melee going on. I don't think yesterday's eyewitness saw that at all.
 
This captures much of the essence of my feelings concerning the state of training within the LE community today. I don't blame the officers as much as I blame the system that currently trains them. We all know that you generally react under stress in accordance with your training. Years ago, we were trained to de-escalate whenever humanly possible. Yelling and screaming serves nothing more than to amp up suspects, bystanders and the officers themselves. Nothing good can come of that. Ramping up one's central nervous system is not the best path to de-escalation, assuming that de-escalation is the preferred outcome.




Oh, I know but that is why I was such a dick about my response. He is demanding of us to be more open minded (which I actually am) and he is falling prey to even the most basic of spins and one that is easily unraveled.

This shooting has to be very well investigated and by people who have no interest in the outcome. That last part is going to be real tough because you have CCWers who have interests here, you have cops with interests here, and you have the entire training and power structure of LE with an interest here. Many civies here have said Scott would have been better off with less attitude but I have not seen the cops say that their training is probably lacking in this area nor have I heard the trainers say they need to do a better job with training in this area. In those last two groups, we have actually heard the exact opposite (ref: conway's post and the local PDs smear campaign).

I want every cop reading this to remember, it isn't just CCWrs who are at risk of being innocently gunned down. It is you too when either in plain clothes or "off the clock" carrying under LEOSA. Don't believe me, look at the Providence shooting from 5 or so years ago. They smeared that cop too in order to duck out from under the blame and have to face that the training today is all about projecting control and authority to gain compliance instead of teaching recruits to use their frickn' brains.
 
The current state is this:

1. No illegal drugs found in the system per the coroner's report. All drugs were prescribed. Two out of three doctor's have testified that Scott was not addicted, but required high levels for his documented ailments. One doctor has testified that he formed the opinion that Scott was addicted to hydrocodone. All three doctor's stated they never saw or opined the possibility that Scott could be aggressive. They have all testified that he was not a "drug seeker", but clearly wanted to resolve his medical issues. On the bad side for Scott is the fact that, at a minimum, these drugs had to have depressed his CNS enough to at least cloud his judgement and/or slow his actions. Personally, if I had drugs of this nature in my system, I don't think I'd want to carry, but that's me.

2. Coroner's report: One of those seven shots is going to boomerang back on whichever officer shot him in the ass. The trajectory was straight up through the bowel, intestines, abdomen and I believe they said into the lower chest. The testimony indicated that the bullet DID NOT deflect. This is not good. Testimony thus far indicates that Scott fell to his knees, lurched forward onto his face and collapsed. In order for a standing or crouching officer to achieve that shot trajectory, he had to have fired that shot while Scott was down on his knees and his face on, or nearly on, the pavement.

3. Costco witnesses: They are lucky they are not being cross-examined by a remotely competent attorney. At least one of them stated that Officer Mosher tapped Scott on the shoulder from behind, while the other witness stated that Officer Mosher grabbed Scott to control him. Officer Mosher's testimony yesterday indicated that he NEVER TOUCHED SCOTT. I am inclined to believe the officer's testimony in this regard, since we know he had his gun in his hand. I don't know any officer that would be dumb enough to get up-close-and-personal while holding his weapon. I was always trained that an officer with a holstered weapon makes the approach, while others cover out of reach. Again though, maybe things have changed in training. This has thoroughly impeached the testimony of the Costco witnesses in my eyes.

4. The video: I suspect that Chain of Custody issues may be brought up. I nearly fell out of my chair when the IT person for the company that installs/services the DVR equipment for that Costco location stated under oath that the Costco hard drives were brought to him a couple of days AFTER the shooting, not by the police, but by one of his employees and a rep from Costco. WTF??? It appeared that the DA tried to do some damage control by having the witness stipulate that he did not physically open the drive itself, but anyone with half a brain knows that data manipulation and/or erasure can occur through the external connection. That drive needs to be forensically analyzed, if it has not been already. The rep for the drive manufacturer has already stated that they did not do any forensic analysis, only recovery of what was recoverable. Personally, my BS meter is on extreme high alert vis-a-vis this video. It is working fine until minutes before the shooting, is running fine again after the shooting and the chain of custody is broken. I'm now asking myself what kind of detectives they have in the LVMPD.

5. Officer Mosher: He is certainly more believeable than the Costco witnesses, but at this point, anything is more believeable than the Costco witnesses. He has testified that he has approximately 5 years on LVMPD. The DA asked him about prior LE experience to which Mosher stated he worked for Mass DOC and that his prior LEO status was as a Mass Special State Police Officer. He's a local boy. The only thing gnawing at me regarding this guy is this gut feeling he is a cowboy. I've known many LEO's who have never shot anyone in the course of their entire career. Mosher has been involved with three on-duty shootings in 5 years, two of them fatal. Obviously, that is not necessarily proof of anything regarding Mosher himself, but it should cause his superiors to evaluate what he was taught in training. I mean, at this rate, he's going to kill a lot of people over the course of a thirty year career.
 
This case concerns me on the drug side. Antis are going to use whatever they can to disarm people and those on psycho-stimulants are biased against in many areas. They can't be pilots, they are losing their CDLs (weight and diabetes are also starting to cause CDL forfeitures) and it is only going to get worse over time. The CDL issues I just raised stem from truckers blaming meds when they got in wrecks after falling asleep. The med game saves their ass in that instance but it is starting to have larger ramifications. I am sure some truckers don't attend to their health properly but still outright bans of those with certain controllable health conditions is going to open the door for it to be used elsewhere.

Anyhow, was there any testimony about how he was acting prior to the incident or how these meds were effecting him personally? Scapegoating the meds may appear to be convenient to those investigating (it turns this into a tragedy of errors instead of forcing them to assign blame) but it could have huge ramifications for the rest of us.

Eta, nice writeup noty. Thanks.
 
Well, certainly the testimony of the Costco Loss Prevention Officer indicates that he thought Scott was acting strange because he needed some assistance by his girlfriend at one point and he was talking to himself. This can have bad connotations or it could be meaningless. In my case, I have had two knee operations due to on the job injuries, the net effect of which is that my knee frequently gives out and I need assistance getting back up and walking. I've also been known to start humming tunes out of the blue while shopping. Maybe I need to make a note to myself to stop humming so I don't run the risk of getting shot the next time I go to BJ's!! There are also known medical conditions that cause people to occasionally yell out epithets or say strange things. Obviously, such behavior bears watching, but is not indicative of anything on its own.

I've already covered the point about my thoughts on the impeachability of the Costco witnesses thus far. Frankly, without inside video, I am not convinced that Scott's actions are as bizarre as Costco is trying to make it out to be. The LPO has stated that he did not order Scott to leave and that he did not "trespass" him. That is a process whereby they give you a written notification that you are to leave the premises. In most jurisdictions, they ask you to sign the notification, but I don't know if that is the case in Nevada. Since the LPO did not at least verbally "trespass" him, his whole testimony of bizarre behavior by Scott now strikes me as Costco spin. Don't forget, Scott walked past one or more officers, men trained to spot bizarre behavior. Obviously, Scott could not have exhibited bizarre behavior at the door because the officers didn't know Scott was the suspect until the LPO pointed him out to the officer. WTF?? We are being asked to believe that a MWAG suspect is going from bizarre to normal, then back to bizarre. I struggle to get my brain around such a concept because it does not comport with my training, nor my experience. I have seen people exhibit mood swings or manic-depressive behavior during my career, but such behavior typically does not occur instantaneously as is being suggested here and it is well documented by the person's medical record. Yet, all three doctor's that treated Scott testified that he was well behaved with no signs of mania. So, who am I to believe regarding his behavior, the Loss Prevention Officer or the multiple doctors???

I have no problem with the DA presenting the meds that were in Scott's system. That is a valid topic that may or may not shed light on the reasons this shooting occurred. Frankly, I thought it both irrelevant and a risky strategic maneuver for the DA to dredge up supposed steroid use and/or illicit drug use from years ago. The drugs were not found in his system at autopsy. Throwing this out there to the jury could backfire if they interpret it as a hatchet job. It's not as if the DA didn't have enough fresh ammo (pardon the pun) vis-a-vis all the other drugs that were documented in Scott's system.



This case concerns me on the drug side. Antis are going to use whatever they can to disarm people and those on psycho-stimulants are biased against in many areas. They can't be pilots, they are losing their CDLs (weight and diabetes are also starting to cause CDL forfeitures) and it is only going to get worse over time. The CDL issues I just raised stem from truckers blaming meds when they got in wrecks after falling asleep. The med game saves their ass in that instance but it is starting to have larger ramifications. I am sure some truckers don't attend to their health properly but still outright bans of those with certain controllable health conditions is going to open the door for it to be used elsewhere.

Anyhow, was there any testimony about how he was acting prior to the incident or how these meds were effecting him personally? Scapegoating the meds may appear to be convenient to those investigating (it turns this into a tragedy of errors instead of forcing them to assign blame) but it could have huge ramifications for the rest of us.

Eta, nice writeup noty. Thanks.
 
So today took a turn for the weird. A bunch of witnesses didn't show up, including Scott's girlfriend. The family may not have provided a list of witnesses they wanted called. More testimony by Costco employees that makes it seem like Scott was acting mentally ill. There may be some crow-eating in the future.

One (or more, not sure) witness whose story is that Scott began removing his holster.
 
Excuse me, but one of the elements required to constitute trespass is CLEAR NOTICE of trespass. They essentially stated that they DID NOT LIKE GUNS in the store and he simply assured them that he was legally allowed to carry. How can anyone of sound mind infer that a statement detesting guns can somehow magically translate to a demand to leave the property?? Give me a break.

Rand Paul actually brought this up in his defense of his position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Basically if the government can mandate that private businesses cater to some protected political class (e.g. minorities, non-white patrons, etc.) then you have to logically allow a CCW-holder to be able to do the same.

The confusion is a predicable consequence of politically-motivated meandering in the Freedom of Association. Some associations are mandated by law, while others', like this case, are clearly not. Can a CCW-holder, who is carrying, continue to shop in a store, or eat in a restaurant if asked to leave? Where's the line? I believe the owner of any property (or somebody acting in said capacity, [e.g. employee of Cosco]) should be able to tell any patron to leave. The patron has to leave. Otherwise, it's simply trespassing.

Basically, if we want to live in a free society, we should be able to freely associate with whomever we wish to. This includes blacks, white-supremacists, black-separatists, CCW-holders, redheads, women, men, children, elderly, Iranians, or libertarian-lolly-pop-licking-librarians from Liberia.
 
I thought that the only witness from Friday who was believable was the Gentleman who was identified as the store manager. His statements came across as consistent and forthright. He was also the only person to get up close and actually interact with Scott, other than the police. The one consistent theme that seemed to shine through is that Scott was not violent or abusive, but simply impaired. That comports well with the medical testimony earlier in the proceeding.

I am struggling over one item in Mosher's testimony. Throughout his entire time on the stand, he has been able to vividly tell us the color of the firearm, it's type, the exact movement of the suspect's hands, the suspect's lethargy (or as Mosher put it, he was "out of it") and the glazed, bloodshot look in the suspect's eyes. I can appreciate that part of the testimony and it speaks about being so close to someone that he, a trained observer, takes in a lot about the suspect's demeanor and condition. That close, I'm sure he was probably on guard for any whiffs of alcohol!! I am struggling though to understand how he, of all people, could possibly fail to observe that the firearm was holstered. We know that as fact because it was found on the ground in that condition and at least some of the witnesses have said it was always within the holster.

Other than the manager, the rest of the eyewitness testimony is what real experts probably already expected, contradictory at best, and represents a glowing example why physical evidence is so crucial. Yesterday's witnesses varied the shot count, with one witness saying there were only four rounds fired!! The only witness I saw who got the shot count right was Officer Mosher. None of the witnesses agreed on the placement and movements of Scott's left hand. One witness had his left hand lifting his shirt, another had it down by his left side and another had it out in front at waist level. All of the civilian witnesses have varied on the testimony regarding Scott's right hand, the position of the weapon, whether it was in or out of its holster, whether it was even in a holster, color, etc. Personally, I see many gaping holes in the eyewitness testimony. I hate to say it, but the guy who came across to me as the biggest buffoon was the gentleman eyewitness who testified he was a CCW holder. There was a lot of self-promotion in his testimony, to the point that the prosecutor had to stop him a couple of times and ask him simply to answer the question at hand, wait to hear the entire question, etc. Interestingly enough, his testimony stated that it appeared Scott was trying to surrender his firearm, that the gun was in its holster, not pointed at the officers as Mosher stated, that Mosher's first bullet struck Scott in the chest spinning him 180 degrees, that Mosher's second bullet hit Scott in the back, that the muzzle was pointed more in the witnesses direction and that he would not have surrendered to police in the manner that Scott was attempting. If that part is true, I agree with this guy due to the nature of police training today.

Some interesting questions that came from the jury and "other interested parties", that the prosecutor obviously tried to avoid revolved around the Chain of Custody issue I mentioned earlier concerning the DVR hard drives. It was confirmed that the hard drives themselves were under Costco's control for at least a few days after the shooting and that Costco employees, along with their DVR service company played around with the drives, ostensibly to try to recover pertinent video. The really interesting part of this is that the Costco manager testified that they knew they had a problem with the video shutting down, but that they simply re-booted it each day to get it going again. That begs the question about the extent of the gap on the day of the shooting?? The gap on the pertinent drive extends back 2 days before the shooting, when all the prior gaps are much shorter in duration. Part of the prosecutor's line to deflect criticism there was to elicit testimony that Scott's girlfriend was placed in the same office as the DVR equipment by herself for a couple of hours, so she had the opportunity to screw up the tape!!

I'm back at square one and waiting for the rest of the scintillating testimony before I actually make a firm conclusion in my own mind about this case. Here are the facts as elicited thus far, discounting eyewitness accounts.

1. Scott had legitimate medical issues, but was no doubt impaired by the medication he was prescribed. It was probably a very dumb move to carry in such a condition. Yet to be elicited is what drugs, if any, the paramedics administered.

2. Scott's firearm (well, the one in contention) was photographed by the police, and the DVR once it was re-started, after the shooting on the ground and in its holster.

3. We know that Scott did not have a criminal record.

4. We know that he was identified to the officers as a possible CCW holder based on the dispatch tapes.

5. That shot up the ass is undeniable.



So today took a turn for the weird. A bunch of witnesses didn't show up, including Scott's girlfriend. The family may not have provided a list of witnesses they wanted called. More testimony by Costco employees that makes it seem like Scott was acting mentally ill. There may be some crow-eating in the future.

One (or more, not sure) witness whose story is that Scott began removing his holster.
 
I agree with you regarding trespass. The issue here is that the Costco manager has already stated under oath that they did not "trespass" Scott. The Costco manager did make Scott aware of the Costco no-gun policy. We also heard the taped interview of the girlfriend where she stated that Scott informed her of the discussion with the manager regarding the no-gun policy and that they were going out to the car to get rid of the firearms when the evacuation was ordered.




Rand Paul actually brought this up in his defense of his position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Basically if the government can mandate that private businesses cater to some protected political class (e.g. minorities, non-white patrons, etc.) then you have to logically allow a CCW-holder to be able to do the same.

The confusion is a predicable consequence of politically-motivated meandering in the Freedom of Association. Some associations are mandated by law, while others', like this case, are clearly not. Can a CCW-holder, who is carrying, continue to shop in a store, or eat in a restaurant if asked to leave? Where's the line? I believe the owner of any property (or somebody acting in said capacity, [e.g. employee of Cosco]) should be able to tell any patron to leave. The patron has to leave. Otherwise, it's simply trespassing.

Basically, if we want to live in a free society, we should be able to freely associate with whomever we wish to. This includes blacks, white-supremacists, black-separatists, CCW-holders, redheads, women, men, children, elderly, Iranians, or libertarian-lolly-pop-licking-librarians from Liberia.
 
I agree with you regarding trespass. The issue here is that the Costco manager has already stated under oath that they did not "trespass" Scott. The Costco manager did make Scott aware of the Costco no-gun policy. We also heard the taped interview of the girlfriend where she stated that Scott informed her of the discussion with the manager regarding the no-gun policy and that they were going out to the car to get rid of the firearms when the evacuation was ordered.

I worked retail before and during my college years. When we wanted somebody to leave the store (e.g. teens that were wrecking havoc, known-shoplifter, super "high maintenance" customer, etc.) we would ask them to leave the premises. If they didn't do so immediately, the police were contacted and a unit would arrive within 10 minutes. Then Officer Friendly would kindly reaffirm our decision to have the person(s) removed. If they didn't comply, Officer Friendly quickly turned into Officer Unfriendly.

So while there's some ambiguity about if he was "properly trespassed", he was told to leave by the representative of the store. It takes less than 60 seconds from wherever you are in most stores, to your vehicle. I guess I'm sort of questioning either the police response or the victims choice to leave the store immediately, considering he was confronted by the LVPD outside the store.

I guess if I was in Scott's shoes, and I hope me nor anybody else has this displeasure, I would immediately drop my items and leave. I would then call and start a dialog, from home, with the store manager about their policies. If, during this conversation there was even a remote whiff of anti-gunness, I would cancel my membership, post up on the Examiner and forever disparage and boycott the store.
 
Originally Posted by n1oty
Excuse me, but one of the elements required to constitute trespass is CLEAR NOTICE of trespass. They essentially stated that they DID NOT LIKE GUNS in the store and he simply assured them that he was legally allowed to carry. How can anyone of sound mind infer that a statement detesting guns can somehow magically translate to a demand to leave the property?? Give me a break.

Rand Paul actually brought this up in his defense of his position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Basically if the government can mandate that private businesses cater to some protected political class (e.g. minorities, non-white patrons, etc.) then you have to logically allow a CCW-holder to be able to do the same.

I agree with you regarding trespass. The issue here is that the Costco manager has already stated under oath that they did not "trespass" Scott. The Costco manager did make Scott aware of the Costco no-gun policy. We also heard the taped interview of the girlfriend where she stated that Scott informed her of the discussion with the manager regarding the no-gun policy and that they were going out to the car to get rid of the firearms when the evacuation was ordered.

"I don't like guns" <> "Leave the store right now: you're kind isn't welcome here."

For that matter:

"Our store policy prohibits guns" <> "Leave the store right now: you're kind isn't welcome here."


You can infer what you want, but if they never said: Scott (or hey you) get out of this store, then he had no reason to leave . . .

If they DID, then ok. He should have left, 2A rights or no 2A rights.
 
5. Officer Mosher...I mean, at this rate, he's going to kill a lot of people over the course of a thirty year career.

The rate of attacks on LE outside of Mass. is huge compared to the rate in Mass. I agree that the number of shootings raises some eyebrows, but IIRC that city has 6 or 7 patrol sectors, some nicey nice residential, some very violent and dangerous. I'd like to know more about the prior shootings before passing judgement on them; he was cleared by multiple review boards after the shootings, but I'm curious to see the results nonetheless. Not out of doubt, but just because the media always focuses on the wrong aspect of them. I doubt that this shoot was the result of poor training.

Yesterday's witnesses varied the shot count, with one witness saying there were only four rounds fired!! The only witness I saw who got the shot count right was Officer Mosher.

I'm willing to bet that the only reason he did was because of his agency/union OIS policy. Cops who shoot routinely get the number of shots fired wrong, sometimes even the sequence of events leading up to it, or major factors of the shooting itself, even when their actions were legally correct. It has to do with how the mind processes traumatic events, slow time/fast time, and other strange things as adrenaline and cortisol shut down the upper 2/3's of the brain.

None of the witnesses agreed on the placement and movements of Scott's left hand. One witness had his left hand lifting his shirt, another had it down by his left side and another had it out in front at waist level. All of the civilian witnesses have varied on the testimony regarding Scott's right hand, the position of the weapon, whether it was in or out of its holster, whether it was even in a holster, color, etc.

Similar issue to the one I mentioned above, only it's heightened when people have no training in observation or stress management, and no experience applying both in a real life situation. No surprise, it happens all the time as you said.

Some interesting questions that came from the jury and "other interested parties", that the prosecutor obviously tried to avoid revolved around the Chain of Custody issue I mentioned earlier concerning the DVR hard drives.

I have some unanswered questions about the video too, but different ones than most people here. I have a nagging suspicion that there's a subplot here involving the cameras that has nothing to do with the officers involved in the shooting.

5. That shot up the ass is undeniable.

But it doesn't mean anything on it's own. Someone on their stomach holding a gun is still a very real threat in any situation, but especially in a crowded one like that, even when mortally wounded.

I agree with you regarding trespass. The issue here is that the Costco manager has already stated under oath that they did not "trespass" Scott. The Costco manager did make Scott aware of the Costco no-gun policy.

Just a guess here, but that may have something to do with the store's policy. Nevada may also have a totally different trespass standard than other states too, but my interest in their law faded when they dropped off the FL reciprocity list.
 
Last edited:
From all of the updates here, it is becoming clear. This will be washed and the conclusion will be a "tragedy of errors" and that no single person was to blame. The cops will get off because of "furtive movements" possibly with an admonishment that they probably should have been dialed down a little bit. The store will be absolved because all they did was relay info to the police with the admonishment that they should have trespassed him on the spot. Scott will be blamed for being high and defending his right to carry to the store manager.

Ultimately the meds will be blamed. All you people out there with kids who are ADD/ADHD or have some sort of other hyped and popular behavioral problem, your kids may become lifetime prohibited, at least for carry, when this is all said and done. Your kids already can't become pilots for the rest of their life and would have great difficulty getting a CDL at this point.

I know, dour outlook but I think it's a valid worry.
 
Well, the store manager has specifically stated, under oath, that he did NOT order or even ask Scott to leave. If anything, his testimony indicates that he was simply trying to help Scott with his shopping and that he did not object to Scott opening packages, merely that he thought opening the packages was "bizarre". (Note to self: Exercise extreme caution in the future when I examine or open packages at retail establishments). I, too, fully support any merchant or property owner who desires that someone leave, but no one is a mind reader, which is why clear notice is an element to the crime of trespass to property, especially in a venue that is open to the public.




"I don't like guns" <> "Leave the store right now: you're kind isn't welcome here."

For that matter:

"Our store policy prohibits guns" <> "Leave the store right now: you're kind isn't welcome here."


You can infer what you want, but if they never said: Scott (or hey you) get out of this store, then he had no reason to leave . . .

If they DID, then ok. He should have left, 2A rights or no 2A rights.
 
Agreed. In and of itself, statistical analysis of Mosher's propensity for shooting may, or may not, have any bearing on this particular shooting and whether it is, or is not, justified. However, his supervisor's should be looking at the statistics for a variety of reasons which may not even be applicable to this shooting. The salient facts are:

1. Mosher is a member of a department that employs 2,981 police officers, 1,511 civilian workers and 1,198 correctional employees (sworn and civilian).

2. The Las Vegas news outlets have reported approximately 200 officer-involved shootings since 1976.

3. Mosher has been involved in 3 of the reported 200 officer-involved shootings for this department.

Statistically, this could mean many things. It could be a statistical anomoly with no real meaning, it could indicate a rogue officer, it could mean that LVMPD has training issues that only affects newer officer's. I am not in a position to judge that aspect. However, it should give Mosher's supervisors cause for an in-depth examination.




The rate of attacks on LE outside of Mass. is huge compared to the rate in Mass. I agree that the number of shootings raises some eyebrows, but IIRC that city has 6 or 7 patrol sectors, some nicey nice residential, some very violent and dangerous. I'd like to know more about the prior shootings before passing judgement on them; he was cleared by multiple review boards after the shootings, but I'm curious to see the results nonetheless. Not out of doubt, but just because the media always focuses on the wrong aspect of them. I doubt that this shoot was the result of poor training.
 
2. The Las Vegas news outlets have reported approximately 200 officer-involved shootings since 1976.

3. Mosher has been involved in 3 of the reported 200 officer-involved shootings for this department.

Statistically, this could mean many things. It could be a statistical anomoly with no real meaning, it could indicate a rogue officer, it could mean that LVMPD has training issues that only affects newer officer's.

That is a very good point to consider.

One more thing to keep in mind though, the majority of the cops on LVMPD are young guys with less than 5 years experience. I think it has a lot to do with the massive growth of that city in the past (at one point LE/fire/EMS were being issued new street maps every two weeks because of all the new developments going in) and their hiring process itself. They have excellant training and fairly strict hiring standards, my point is just that they tend to be one of the "feeder" LE agencies with a lot of young workers.
 
After 1 1/2 hours of deliberation, the inquest jury has returned a verdict that this shooting was justified.
 
Back
Top Bottom