By the way, Tom, Shai Lierley was actually there, and is not a cop. He "knows" more about that day than you, Mr. Scott, or I ever will.
Perhaps that is because you were only clicking on Tom's links, and not mine. I linked to the trial and the real witnesses. He linked to the creeps, blowhards, parasites and cop-killer-wannabees.
Thank you, but I never clicked on any of the links posted because they appeared to be either blogs or TV stations, both which can contain bias. I prefer to get the facts and make my own conclusions. The facts of the inquest should point to the conclusion, without undue external bias or conjecture.
It is a tragedy, no doubt, and I am curious since Scott was a USMA grad (I was class of 1992) and CCW holder (of which I am one in several states). However, that does not make it correct or incorrect, just that I have an interest.
After doing my own research, which consisted merely of a google search, I find many conflicting testimonies. Did they ever recover the video? I had not seen that anywhere.
I grew up in a law-enforcement household. That being said, I am not naive and know there are bad apples in any profession, or people who have no business being in law enforcement.
I do not blame Costco, they were merely the messneger in all this, from what I have read. It was the police who either over-reacted or did not, and in either case resulting in the death of someone. I had not heard anything more from the inquest, that's all.
The TV stations fomerly had video of the actual testimony of witnesses. You still might be able to get some on Youtube. The audio with accompanying rolling transcript of the Costco 911 call was still up, last time I checked. I commend it. If you click on the words " Shai Lierley" in my last post, you'll be taken to a photo of him demonstrating what he saw Scott do.
HEAR THE 911 CALL from Costco.
If you are still interested in primary sources, HERE are the official jury instructions for the coroner's jury.
If you wish their reports, they are available HERE.
NAPO Salutes the 2011
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Officer William Mosher
Officer Joshua J. Stark
Perhaps this is less for surviving the incident than the PR aftermath.
No, it was an award for shooting a guy with a blackberry and a pair of sunglasses in his hand. That passes for "heroism" among the law-enforcement class.
Here are some more of your "heros":
I guess one reason that Las Vegas police don't like videocameras is it show up what liars they are.
faced criminal charges for battery on a police officer.
Yup, no liars there. I guess it's good we have the video to show the officers were telling the truth. Based on the picture I saw of Mr Crooks after the incident, it looks like he pummled their boots with his face. A clear act of assault on a police officer.
And it's too bad the officers didn't shoot Mr. Crooks, or maybe they could have won an award for heroism, too. I mean, after that vicious assualt by Mr. Crooks, I'm sure they were "in fear for their lives." They showed quite a bit of restraint, I suppose.
Should be worth at least an "honorable mention."
Shai Lierley, a Costco loss prevention supervisor, demonstrates how Erik Scott brought his gun on an officer as he testifies during a coroner's inquest at the Regional Justice Center Thursday, September 23, 2010.
Yes, the excitable Mr. Lierley says he say Scott draw his gun. An excellent witness.
Has he also told us how the gun got back in the holster? That sneaky gun, must have gone back in by itself when no one looking.
Here's a picture from the scene, showing the gun still in in the holster:
Yes, a reliable witness, as you say.
Oh, in case you're not sure: Here is a close up:
Mosher testified he did not know the gun was in the holster. So, his observation was distorted. He excuses his mistake by saying that "a gun could have been shot if it was in that kind of holster" but who are you going to believe - an award-winning police officer, or your own eyes? Look at the holster - the trigger guard is covered. You CAN'T shoot that gun without removing it from the holster. Mosher's mistake was fatal.
Bad shoot, period. The "award" was a sham. Shame on you for sticking up for this trash.
See you in civil court.
The guy from the Goodman Law Firm said: ""he responded the best he could by handing over the holstered gun". I heard it on tape. I posted the link.
The Scott family lawyer puts the gun in Scott's hand. He at least lives in Vegas and has been to Costco.
As to how the gun could be in the holster - if the belt is thin, the spring at all loose, or the holster tight, the gun comes away with the holster still on. I have had it happen to me at the range. Not only that, if you read my old posts, you'll see my discussion about the gun in the holster.
See posts # 101 and 103 in this very thread. For me, the "holster thing is old news. I watched a lot of the live testimony. You also forget what you said about the order of "finding" the guns. I didn't. Post 103.
'I'd guess if he was carring 2 guns, then he'd have (1) a good personal defense gun close at hand, say a Kimber .45, or maybe a Sig at the waist, or SOB perhaps, which would be the gun first recovered, and then (2) a Ruger LCP 380 or Kahr-type gun in an ankle holster.
The point being, the first gun he would reach for would be a more powerful, higher quality gun, and the second gun found would only be his backup gun."
Paraphrasing your conclusion -- If the Kimber was found FIRST, and the backup found SECOND, that's consistent with him having reached for his gun to use it.
By the way, if you listen to the interview with his girlfriend carefully, you will hear her describe how he reaches for his gun. That was VERY early on in the case. You will also hear how he was given instructions to lie down, and instead reached for his gun. P 12 of the transcript, she says the officer told Erik to lie down. He didn't. Gf began screaming. She tells the interviewer that the cops then told him not to move. The one thing they did not tell him to do was to reach for his gun. He did.
This case shows why"near lethal" levels of CNS depressants and firearms do not mix. If he'd been clear headed, this likely never would have happened.
You will also hear how he was given instructions to lie down, and instead reached for his gun... The one thing they did not tell him to do was to reach for his gun.
Errr... Actually, the transcript of the police transmission includes the police telling him to "drop it." That can be heard pretty clearly.
Which it appears he was trying to do. No matter what he did, he would have been "failing to follow police instruction" Which is what he was shot for.
"Explaining" why the gun was in the holster when he was supposedly trying to shoot the officers is speculation, and justifies killing him for what he *could have been trying to do* - not what he did. It also discounts the witnesses that said they saw Scott trying to shoot the officers, and bolsters the claim of those that say he was trying to drop his holstered gun.
The fact that Mosher admitted he did not see that the gun was in the holster tells me the guy was on hair-trigger, and wasn't seeing things right. Trying to "explain away" the fact that the gun was holster is a sad place for you to end up.
With those rules, eventually anyone can be shot with "cause" at any time, because there is always a possibility they may be about to do something dangerous. .
Which, I suppose, is what you are "shooting" for.
"No, it was an award for shooting a guy with a blackberry and a pair of sunglasses in his hand."
Your explanation was that he had sunglasses in his hand, not a gun. Bs. No basis for it. The picture was of a GUN, not sunglasses or a blackberry. You made the rest up. His GF says he was "reaching for his gun", to "disarm". The family lawyer says he had his gun in hand. The only person who says cellphone/sunglasses is YOU.
You have a rich inner life, which usually has little relationship to the real world - hence the little plays about "squirrel hunting" in your Popkowski posts.
I also have a holster that usually comes out with the gun, it's a Mike's, and it's a nice slim profile that fits great on my back. Couple it with the single capacity Smith that resides in it, and it's very hard to see, which is the intent. It's also possible to shoot with the holster in place.
That being said, I can see, from the officer's point of view, that it may not have been apparent the holster was still attached to the gun. It is slim, form fitting, and the same color as the gun.
Now perhaps Mosher should have waited to confirm this, but look at the scenario: he's been called to a store because a person is acting erratically and has been spotted with a handgun. While the commands may have been confusing to the subject, it is my opinion the subject, in his altered state, may not have heard and processed everything correctly. I think some fault also lies with Mosher, in that his commands were conflictory. If that were me (and I CC all the time), I would have put my hands up and lay down on the ground, never going for the gun for any reason. Had Mosher waited, not knowing the subject or the background, he very well could have been fired upon. It's happened before in many instances.
But we're playing armchair quarterback here, which is easy. Looking at the case as a whole, I can understand the steps taken by the police and do not fault them for it. While sad, it could have been much worse if the subject had hostile intent, but the officer did not know the intent, so he had to react accordingly.
The question now becomes, how do we take steps to ensure something like this doesn't happen in the future? I know it's been discussed a lot before, and I know there is no clear answer.
but the officer did not know the intent, so he had to react accordingly.
Ah, so "acting accordingly" when you "don't know the intent" is to shoot the fellow?
You've got it backwards.
The question now becomes, how do we take steps to ensure something like this doesn't happen in the future?
Somewhere, back in the Popkowski thread I said:
1. The senoir officer on scene should take control and shout instructions, not three different cops doing three different things.
2. we need additional training of police so that they shout ONE command, not three different command at a suspect. That is getting citizens killed.
3. CCWs and other law abiding people should establish a PROTOCOL for disarming in the presence of the police, as things stand now, you are likely to get shot if you are trying to disarm.
4. Since the police think everything is great, and they don't want to admit there is a problem (Hey, it's not cops getting shot accidently, it's citizens) the second-amendment community should establish their OWN policy for disarming, or dealing with police confrontation, and get that protocol it put into law so that even if the cop kills you, (and they'll shoot anyway) at you'll have done "the right thing" and the cop will pay the price for it.
As it stands now, cops who screw up are likey to get an award:
Eight Minneapolis officers received medals in City Hall Monday for their valor in a botched raid that the city apologized for last year.
Your explanation was that he had sunglasses in his hand, not a gun.
Your logic is faulty, it's not mutally exclusive. He had a blackberry and pair of sunglasses next to him when he was killed.
Here's some more "award winning" LV Metro cops for you:
Anyway, the LV metro cops shot at THIS guy who DIDN'T have a gun, but he DID have a rent receipt in his hand:
Doesn't matter what you have in your hand, LVMPD will shoot anyway.
It will be interesting to see what happens next.
Marine killed by swat team woken from sleep
Watch homeland security staging maneuvers at college block party, supposed riot
The Jose Guerena case really ought to have its own thread. Per the local news:
"KGUN9 News requested the emergency call records . . . 911 call center notified Drexel Heights at 9:43 a.m. A unit arrived just two minutes later at 9:45. However, deputies told rescue workers to stay put. . . standard to be sure they won't walk into a dangerous situation. But paramedics waited until 10:59 a.m. Then they heard the radio call "Code 900", which meant they were no longer needed because the person was dead."
Big trouble for a variety of reasons. I'd be pretty surprised if it took an hour to clear a house of that size.
This is an urgent call-out to all Oath Keepers, all veterans, all patriotic police officers, all Americans who cherish our liberty and our Constitution, and to all liberty leaders and patriotic organizations to join us in Tucson, Arizona this Memorial Day, May 30, 2011
Oath Keepers to Rally in Tucson on Memorial Day Over Death of Young Marine Veteran
The smear campaign has started:
Mike Storie, a lawyer for the SWAT team, said at a press conference Thursday that weapons and body armor were found in the home as well as a photo of Jesus Malverde, who Storie called a "patron saint drug runner," according to KGUN.
Tucson SWAT Team Defends Shooting Iraq Vet 60 Times
Almost boring how predictable it is.
I'm going to post a thread on the 4th amendment I'll ask you to post your post there or start a new one yourself.
TJC as you asked
Not so predictable. We all had money on the possibility that you'd be lambasting the SEALs for taking down Osama. I can TELL you to wait for the investigation (like in Seattle), but . . . . .
That is a cheap shot, the guy is dead, tell that to his wife and kids, what the hell does an investigation have to do with it.
Collateral damage I'm going to assume they will assign it to, just another casulty of the death of the 4th amendment or the war on drugs take your pick
I haven't said ANYTHING about the dead ex-military guy. Until the investigation uncovers some more facts than the perpetually biased and reality-challenged Tom C hallucinates, I won't have a basis to comment. Tom -- different story. Remember his hunting fantasies about Popkowski? The former Marine who was out to shoot the Med. Director at Togus? Tom had it all figured out - Popkowski was just squirrel hunting.
Me -- I find it best to wait until somebody generates more "facts" than the fever dreams of disaffected cop-haters. The cops might even be wrong. The news story about the call times is a bit of maybe objective evidence that could be important. The same kind of stuff, however, was generated about the demise of Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Mătăsăreanu, who attempted to dust lots of cops and civilians in broad daylight under observation of lots of security cameras.
After Popkowski (and even before), I trust investigators more than Tom C. Almost anybody's investigators.
"Michael Storie is a living illustration of the fact that there is no "mob lawyer" more drenched in disrepute than a barrister who prostitutes himself in the service of a police union. "
Tom had it all figured out - Popkowski was just squirrel hunting
Yeah, until the AG report came out, and the result was a surprise - it PROVED that Popkowski deserved killin'! I mean he was shooting at the VA building! People were running inside to get away from the gunshots!
It was SO DANGEROUS that:
Officer Park drove to the pump house where he observed the pickup truck parked next to the building and recognized it immediately as the same truck Mr. Popkowski had driven off the Togus grounds nearly five hours earlier. Officer Park observed the stock of a rifle or shotgun inside the cab of the truck. He also saw two dogs in the back of the truck. Speculating that Mr. Popkowski was the person shooting near the pond and concerned that he would return to retrieve the firearm inside the truck, Officer Park decided to stay in the area for a while. In the meantime, he spoke with residents across the street who told him they had heard three to five gunshots coming from the woods behind the pump house near the Togus VA grounds. After hearing a single gunshot from the same area of the woods, Officer Park positioned himself near the pump house in view of the wooded path.
He sat and WAITED FOR THE GUNMAN TO COME OUT OF THE WOODS. Didn't call backup, didn't think the issue was something that required dealing with immediately.
Yeah, must have been imminent danger for sure. When a sniper has taken up a position and is firing on civilians you WAIT FOR HIM TO COME OUT OF THE WOODS.
Hey, I've got an explanation that makes more sense. How about: "The whole story is a pantload."
We all had money on the possibility that you'd be lambasting the SEALs for taking down Osama.
Yup, attack the messanger. Start the baseless smear campaign.
What do you go guys do - go to seminars to learn this stuff? You're reading from the same playbook.
Hey, here's one for you. Guy is responding to police orders - lying on the ground with his hands out - when police shoot him.
Stamps was on the floor in the hallway when he entered, face-down, showing his hands. It's hard to imagine a more submissive, non-threatening position. Stamps was 68, walked with a cane, weighed at least 300 pounds.
But Duncan was still worried: "What happens if there's a gun or something hidden anywhere and he just reaches quick? What happens?... I gotta make a decision. Do I fire, do I not fire?"
Editorial: SWAT raid questions
That cop is back to work by the way. According to his boss:
What have Framingham police learned from this tragedy? "There's no reason for (Duncan) not to come back to work," Chief Steven Carl said. "He didn't commit a crime."
Ummm... maybe because he killed an innocent man in cold blood, and is a danger to the community?
Oh, no - wait - he THOUGHT HE MIGHT BE IN DANGER. Fire away.
Hey, give him an award!
SSRIs help with depression and OCD. Not so much with outright dementia.
Then you might want to increase your dose.
Speaking of dementia, the SWAT team that killed Guerena released a video, and the liar, er, lawyer for the SWAT guys are trying to tell us it exonerates his clients.
I've seen the video, and if you're a hyped-up, paranoid, bloodthirsty bootlicker, (no offence tjc) then you might agree.
However, what I heard for "sirens" sounded like eight seconds of a car alarm, that then it stopped, nothing I don't hear a few times a week, what I heard for "police announcing themselves” seemed to be some shouting that didn’t make any sense, and so probably wouldn’t be understandable in the house or on the far end of it.
From the time the shouting started to the time Guerena was shot was about 17 seconds - not enough time to rise from a sleep, figure out what your wife was saying, and understand what was going on.
It seems Guerena was responding to his training - in 17 seconds he awoke, told his wife to take cover, and assumed a defensive position. His relatives had been killed in a similar house invasion, and he knew someone had been casing his house.
He was not trying to fire at police, he was in a defensive position, with the safety on. Marines make fewer fire errors in combat then any other soldier in the world. The SWAT team is responsible for the public's safety as well as their own (they would be surprised to find out) and they killed the guy in cold blood.
But I’m sure if we all just take some drugs, as you suggest, and go back to our American Idol, this will all go away.
Me, I'm content to wait for the outcome of the investigation. I haven't concluded anything but that it sure seemed like a long time between when rescue arrived and when they were allowed to enter.
I just saw two Colo cops indicted -- that is what the investigation said should happen. I said "wait . . ." in the John T. Williams case, just like with Popkowski and Scott.
You are quick to prejudge people you have never met, based on happenings you have never seen, in places you have never been. You are frequently wrong, despite "cherry picking" cases that appeal to media wonks at first blush. That is because the term "fact" means something different to you than it does to most.
First of all, your attempted characterization of me as someone who hates cops and always blames cops, (or Navy Seals) is a lie. I think most readers of this board recognize that, so I don't bother responding to that childishness. I happen to think it reflects on your character more than mine, but go ahead, knock yourself out.
As far as "cherry picking" stories, I find stories where the cops killed citizens under questionable circumstances, yes.
That is the point, it has nothing to do with "cherry picking."
And when the "investigations" come out, with their predicable outcomes, I point to the gaping holes in them.
Somehow you don't seem to like that.
So you come up with some idea that I need drugs because I'm mentally deficient.
If you are right, though, it might be a good time to invest in pharmaceuticals.
Because we're going to need a LOT of drugs to dope up everyone who thinks like I do.
Welcome to 1984, 27 years later.
"So you come up with some idea that I need drugs because I'm mentally deficient."
I have concluded that you get little plays in your head that you confuse with facts, and which lead you to bad judgments. You have even laid the little plays out for us in the Popkowski case, verbatim. I understand that it can be upsetting when the little plays are shattered by external reality.
PS: You offer a media poll. I'm going to wait for the investigation. "Investigation" crucified the cop in the Williams case, and they've suspended and indicted the cops in the Colorado case. I accept the judgments of people who hve actually looked at the facts. Smart people go where the facts lead. Confused people are led by their fantasies.
Popkowski, cold-blooded sniper ...or squirrel hunter?
that Mr. Popkowski was the person shooting near the pond and concerned that he would return to retrieve the firearm inside the truck, Officer Park decided to stay in the area for a while.
No backup, no hurry, just thought he'd wait until the fellow meandered out of the woods.
Rather than a CONFUSED, EMOTIONAL reaction to the self-serving police version, innuendo and character slurs... perhaps we could let the FACTS lead us to our own conclusions.
More "confused people" that tjc probably thinks should be drugged up, so they stop their inconvenient questioning of aggressive police action:
Hundreds gathered in Pima County Monday for a fallen Marine, but this was no typical Memorial Day ceremony.
"Citizen, we find your questioning of the police disturbing. There will be an official report released that will answer all your questions. If you happen to question that report when it comes out, then we will suggest that perhaps you need sedatives and drugs to allow you to see reality more clearly. "
“The suspect bull rushed his way out of the shed and lunged right at me,” the timorous creature later claimed in an official report. “The suspect was literally inches away from me, and I feared for my own safety.”
Alvarado was lying, of course. An autopsy revealed “no evidence of close range firing [on] the wound,” and no gunpowder stains were found on the victim’s bloody t-shirt.
Eighth Grader Executed for Scaring a Cop
The San Antonio Police Department have indicated that it was a 'justified shooting',
Why was he still on the force?
Of course they have!
you have to wait for the report on the Lopez shooting, see the kid was carrying a reindeer in his arm when he rushed by the officer. Officer almost got gored, it was a good shoot, the kid was armed, a good shoot, a good shoot, a good shoot, kid was armed. Just keep repeating that to yourself.