Cops gun down man carrying legally

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quite a few of my clients present their Concealed Handgun License as ID when having a breathalyzer installed as a condition of their bail. (as I understand it, they lose the CHL for 5 years following a conviction.)

None of them were shot by the police when they were arrested.

Many of them were double the legal limit when arrested (which is often why it is a condition of their bail) Several have been over .24.

I'm not saying that there aren't bad cops. They are out there. The one that beat up my handcuffed nephew and swung at other cops that tried to intervene got fired. He's not alone. I've had run ins with bad cops. Everybody remembers the bad ones. Few remember the good actions by good cops.

To me, this just seems like a really bad set of circumstances. I won't pass good cop/bad cop judgement on the him just yet.
 
From the initial article, its sounds like another case of the cops over reacting to a situation. Police need more training these days on how to handle situations instead of shooting and then asking questions later.
 
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
Mr. Scott was carrying two handguns, one legally, one not.


Please explain.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
Mr. Scott was carrying two handguns, one legally, one not.


Please explain.


In NV, your CCW lists the weapons you are permitted to carry. One of the weapons Scott was carrying that day was not listed on his CCW.
 
Mr. Scott alledegedly had two handguns on his person when killed. He was approved to carry one of those handguns, the other he was not approved to carry concealed (at that time in Nevada you had to qualify with the specific pistol(s) you carried). He also was impaired with a very large dose of painkillers (to treat a service connected injury), and should not have been carrying at all under those conditions.

I'm not saying this justified his shooting. From everything I've seen and heard (this was big news for quite a while in town), the police were preped for an armed crazy man in the presence of civillians, based upon the 911 phone call from a Costco employee. The police apparently interpreted Mr. Scott's attempt to either show the gun, or present them the holstered gun as hostile, and multiple officers fired and struck Mr. Scott. What isn't argued is his handgun was in it's holster after he was shot, and the entire event on video (which was working perfectly the previous day) became unreadable while in the posession of the police. I do not believe the police acted in bad faith in the moment, but it is my opinion there was a coverup after the event (coaching of witnesses, only allowing cooperative ones to testify at the inquest, destruction of the video and attempts to perform a character assination of the victim).

Mr. Scott's father is a retired Air Force Colonel. As such, he had the means and status to pursue legal recourse after the event. He dismissed his suit (each party to pay their own legal fees) when it became apparent he could not win.
 
Don't get me wrong ... I respect the law and the police. But I've seen too many instances given all the facts where the police obviously twist things to their advantage, and make things happen (like videos "disappearing") to make themselves look justified in a shooting when they really were not.

Of course, in court it seems the police get biased treatment because they supposedly "can't do any wrong" in most people's minds. But that's not always true.
 
Originally Posted By: morris
i carry to protect the store, not just me, if you dont want my help, fine ill shop somewhere eles.


I find that a ridiculous statement. You arent paid to, nor are you asked to do this.

You carry to protect yourself, and what you view as to provide a service to protect other people. You dont carry to protect private enterprise that isnt your own...

Maybe you think you do, but I doubt the store you think you are protecting views it that way
smile.gif


11.gif
 
This kind of incidents happen all the time. If you are legally carrying you have to be aware of the risk and consequence of mistaken situation, ESPECIALLY IN HIGH CRIME AREA LIKE LAS VEGAS.

Many people who aren't anti gun are not comfortable around non law enforcement non security carrying around them. Businesses usually do not welcome customers coming in armed because that could make their customers feel insecure (especially those with children).

Unfortunate incidents, but this is something that should be in gun safety training.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
ESPECIALLY IN HIGH CRIME AREA LIKE LAS VEGAS.


This actually occurred in one of the most affluent area of Las Vegas, Summerlin. But, the police don't mess around here - if you have a weapon and don't comply right away, they shoot first and then ask questions later.
 
People on here who complain about 'biased media coverage' and 'biased investigations', and the title of the thread is biased - he WAS NOT CARRYING 100% LEGALLY.

A guy, out of his mind on drugs, carrying TWO guns into a store and acting erractically, is shot by the police.

I don't see what the issue is - if ONE of you was confronted by this individual, you'd shoot first and ask questions later, wouldn't you? Especially if you were with your family?

The hypocrisy on this site is LOONEY!
 
By some it is loony. There is some very vocal members that believe big brother is every where to stop them. I am sorry I have traveled everywhere, if you believe that the Federal Government is a shadow government and is full of individual's that believe you and that people have idea's like you should be suppressed. Feel free to go live in El Salvador, Columbia, or Mexico. Each country it should not be hard to obtain a Visa to live there and each country it would be a little hassle but you can drive there and go ahead and attempt to vocalize your political idea's and I will assure you that although far from perfect in this country you and your friends that share your ideas are free to assemble and protest this government, you can petition your politicians and press, and the tin hat types are not going to agree or believe this but if your respectfully and coherently petition your congressional representatives along with the press they will listen. Now will your government representatives one and all agree with your views and take action solely on your behalf? Not always but if you are persistent enough someone will have a audience with you.
 
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
Mr. Scott alledegedly had two handguns on his person when killed. He was approved to carry one of those handguns, the other he was not approved to carry concealed (at that time in Nevada you had to qualify with the specific pistol(s) you carried). He also was impaired with a very large dose of painkillers (to treat a service connected injury), and should not have been carrying at all under those conditions.

I'm not saying this justified his shooting. From everything I've seen and heard (this was big news for quite a while in town), the police were preped for an armed crazy man in the presence of civillians, based upon the 911 phone call from a Costco employee. The police apparently interpreted Mr. Scott's attempt to either show the gun, or present them the holstered gun as hostile, and multiple officers fired and struck Mr. Scott. What isn't argued is his handgun was in it's holster after he was shot, and the entire event on video (which was working perfectly the previous day) became unreadable while in the posession of the police. I do not believe the police acted in bad faith in the moment, but it is my opinion there was a coverup after the event (coaching of witnesses, only allowing cooperative ones to testify at the inquest, destruction of the video and attempts to perform a character assination of the victim).

Mr. Scott's father is a retired Air Force Colonel. As such, he had the means and status to pursue legal recourse after the event. He dismissed his suit (each party to pay their own legal fees) when it became apparent he could not win.


I would not be even slightly surprised if he dismissed his suit after being told that if he did not, he would be quietly and tragically killed.
 
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
I don't think that happened.

In the local paper today, it was announced that the estate of the Erik Scott initiated a wrongfull death lawsuit against Costco and the employee that misrepresented the situation in his 911 call.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/erik-scott-s-family-files-wrongful-death-suit-against-costco-158268755.html


They dropped the federal suit against the police. A smaller suit only against Costco at the state level is a comparative low hanging fruit.

Instead of seeking justice, the estate is now just seeking a paycheck.
 
Maybe so, but its because they didnt have a leg to stand on given that he was carrying illegally and high on drugs. We dont need that kind "protecting" anything.
 
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
I don't think that happened.

In the local paper today, it was announced that the estate of the Erik Scott initiated a wrongfull death lawsuit against Costco and the employee that misrepresented the situation in his 911 call.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/erik-scott-s-family-files-wrongful-death-suit-against-costco-158268755.html


They dropped the federal suit against the police. A smaller suit only against Costco at the state level is a comparative low hanging fruit.

Instead of seeking justice, the estate is now just seeking a paycheck.


I don't know that the estate is "just seeking a paycheck". This guy left behind a family, right? Don't they deserve some compensation for the personal loss of their son?
I may not like lawyers, or lawsuits, but this family was injured by the loss of their loved one...since he can't be brought back, the only compensatory mechanism is $$...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I don't know that the estate is "just seeking a paycheck". This guy left behind a family, right? Don't they deserve some compensation for the personal loss of their son?
I may not like lawyers, or lawsuits, but this family was injured by the loss of their loved one...since he can't be brought back, the only compensatory mechanism is $$...

Yes, but the argument is that the loss of their loved one was due to his own mistakes.

Should you be required to compensate anyone for any loss in which you're involved, regardless of whether you're at fault?
 
Agree. This is a hairy situation, as the guard employee may well have made matters worse due to egging on the situation.

The shot man leaves behind a family and that is a problem. Then again he should have had life insurance. But, it may not be paid out if he is found at fault for his death, so a finding at law may be necessary, regardless of who pays out.

Still, he was on drugs and carrying illegally. For all those who tout personal responsibility and such things, this is an example of where personal responsibility comes into play. If he was on meds, he likely shouldn't have been carrying at all, let alone double with a disallowed weapon. Whether the cop made the right move or not, whether the guard was justified in a fuss or not, personal responsibility is the most important thing, and this guy was NOT being responsible.
 
DF - that's kind of the point: who's fault was this?

If it was the carryer - no compensation would be merited for his mistake.

But if it is the store's (for an overzealous security guard) - then, yes, the store has to compensate the family for hte loss that their actions incurred.

I am not in a position to judge which is the case here...and I find it fascinating how many people think that they are fit to judge...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

OVERKILL
  • Locked
Store clerk charged after taking thief's baseball bat and beating thief
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
ripcord
raaizin
Sad way to treat a Vet
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Malo83
Zee09
  • Locked
Police Officer Internal Review
Replies
16
Views
930
M56959
John Galt
Unusual reason you got a promotional at work.
Replies
18
Views
650
zzyzzx
shortyb
Guess its my turn, lost a dog buddy
2
Replies
26
Views
599
alarmguy
Back
Top