Thread: Officers Kill Veteran

Two can play at this game.

Slaying of Army veteran shocks friends - News - ReviewJournal.com

Multiple witnesses contradict the cops version of events, but naturally the state found their minions actions "justifiable".

Police officers found justified in Erik Scott shooting; family plans lawsuit - Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010 | 9:56 p.m. - Las Vegas Sun

People die, cops lie. Odd that the testimony of mere civilians are worthless compared to cops when the cops have massive incentive to lie to save their own asses.

And multiple witness accounts also contradict themselves as well. And I can assure you there is much more to this story than what we just read. His friends were more than forthcoming about their buddies past until just prior to the incident when they decide to clam up. It's extremely unfortunate that a Veteran lost his life over this incident but I have a feeling this was a very troubled man and thanks to the bravery of some fine police officers his life was the only one lost that day.

Well, these are some of the civilian witness statements:


Amesbury heard, "I told you to stop. Stop."

Two witnesses interviewed Sunday heard, "Drop it."

A fourth witness, interviewed Saturday, heard, "Get down," "Put it down," or "Get out of the way."

A second anonymous witness said Sunday he saw Scott pull up his shirt and turn toward the shouting officer. Then he saw the man get shot, drop to his knees and fall face-first in front of the entrance.

Also, here's a little gem from the second article:

Scott carried a Ruger .380 semi-automatic handgun and a .45-caliber Kimber single-action pistol. The Kimber was found in its holster not far from where Scott’s body landed after he was shot.

It doesn't sound like this is a cut and dried indictment of police malfeasance. There's more here to the story then this short article reports. (Also, family members and friends saying that Scott was a 'standup guy' etc have no bearing on the case.)

Keith

Originally Posted by trainsktg

It doesn't sound like this is a cut and dried indictment of police malfeasance. There's more here to the story then this short article reports. Also, family members and friends saying that Scott was a 'standup guy' etc have no bearing on the case.

Keith

if his character has no bearing on the case, why have the LVSO and DA's office gone to massive lengths to release every negative detail about his life they can come up with?

Originally Posted by bkb0000

if his character has no bearing on the case, why have the LVSO and DA's office gone to massive lengths to release every negative detail about his life they can come up with?

Read both linked articles. Especially the second. How many stories have we heard relatives of murderers described as 'a great family man'? Such statements in a courtroom are probably appropriate, but in a newspaper article are only included to garner a certain public sentiment. Notice how the family is saying that "Costco killed Erik". Big lawsuits are afoot in this family's plans, you need a sympathetic jury to win the big money.

Nearby citizens hearing what they heard, and a gun, albeit holstered, nearby the body, certainly makes it sound suspiciously like the guy went for a gun. (I would have to draw my gun with its holster too, but it is designed to shoot through if I have to, so I can see this possibly being the case here as well.)

People go nuts, whether they have Masters degrees, or are good fathers, or are veterans.

Keith

Originally Posted by trainsktg

Read both linked articles. Especially the second. Nearby citizens hearing what they heard, and a gun, albeit holstered, nearby the body, certainly makes it sound suspiciously like the guy went for a gun. (I would have to draw my gun with its holster too, but it is designed to shoot through if I have to, so I can see this being the case here as well.)

People go nuts, whether they have Masters degrees, or are good fathers, or veterans.

Keith

i've already read literally dozens of articles on this BS, having followed it closely since it happened last summer.

he did not "go for the gun," he tried to comply with conflicting orders, and was shot for it.

As a side note, look at the incredibly accurate Curly impression the LVSO sheriff is performing.

Keith

Originally Posted by bkb0000

i've already read literally dozens of articles on this BS, having followed it closely since it happened last summer.

he did not "go for the gun," he tried to comply with conflicting orders, and was shot for it.

Well then you have more information than I, I only have these two articles to review.

Keith

Originally Posted by trainsktg

Well then you have more information than I, I only have these two articles to review.

Keith

extensive detail... Former Army officer, West Point&Duke grad shot by police - M4Carbine.net Forums

bkb it right. I remember when this happened and have been following it as well. The cops choked and are covering their a$$e$.

Well, since there appears to be no witnesses/customers anywhere describing the man as being belligerent before the shooting, this certainly lends some suspicion on the sheriffs' actions. It looks like Scott may indeed have 'been made' by an employee and got shot for attempting to follow conflicting orders. Too bad for all.

So...how about that Curly impression? You gotta eat a lot of donuts to get it that accurate.

Keith

maybe its time all cops wear a small device on their person that records all audio & video footage while on duty. Sorta like those helmet cams but smaller. After all, their job is to protect and serve so there shouldnt be a problem just as most work places have cameras fixed on employees and the work stations. That should take care of ensuring the truth be told in all police vs citizen incidents.

Originally Posted by silentslammer

maybe its time all cops wear a small device on their person that records all audio & video footage while on duty. Sorta like those helmet cams but smaller. After all, their job is to protect and serve so there shouldnt be a problem just as most work places have cameras fixed on employees and the work stations. That should take care of ensuring the truth be told in all police vs citizen incidents.

Good thought. I bet you these days are not to far away. It doesn't seem like to long ago when dash cam's were the hot new things.

Originally Posted by silentslammer

maybe its time all cops wear a small device on their person that records all audio & video footage while on duty. Sorta like those helmet cams but smaller. After all, their job is to protect and serve so there shouldnt be a problem just as most work places have cameras fixed on employees and the work stations. That should take care of ensuring the truth be told in all police vs citizen incidents.

Hah fat chance. In some states it's illegal for mere civilians to videotape cops:

Watching the Detectives - Reason Magazine

What's the chance we can force them to wear such a device, and make the undoctored footage public? Zero.

Originally Posted by keystir

Good thought. I bet you these days are not to far away. It doesn't seem like to long ago when dash cam's were the hot new things.

Yep, but every time we see video of potential misconduct people whine and cry about how you didn't see what happened before of after the video.

Hey whatever happened to the officer(s) that stomped that Latino Army guy in Seattle? Oh yeah nothing... No recourse.

We're being conditioned people. No one deserves the benefit of the doubt. Priests, doctors, teachers, Scout Leaders, police, even some kids parents - No one. To do so skews the justice system.

Originally Posted by silentslammer

maybe its time all cops wear a small device on their person that records all audio & video footage while on duty. Sorta like those helmet cams but smaller. After all, their job is to protect and serve so there shouldnt be a problem just as most work places have cameras fixed on employees and the work stations. That should take care of ensuring the truth be told in all police vs citizen incidents.

I don't think that cameras are the solution.

Consider the incidents that happen now with existing videotape. Both sides of the shooting still argue, because no matter what is captured on film, it is all open to interpretation.

Also, (not to make light of police involved shootings) look at NFL replays. No matter how many angles of a play they get, how close they can zoom in, how slow the slo-mo can get, the calls are usually so close that there is no absolute certainty.

Originally Posted by dmancornell

Hah fat chance. In some states it's illegal for mere civilians to videotape cops:

Watching the Detectives - Reason Magazine

What's the chance we can force them to wear such a device, and make the undoctored footage public? Zero.

I was following those incidents with disgust, but if think they are bad check this one out:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/16...-detroit-home/
Autopsy shows girl was shot in head - UPI.com

San Jose PD now uses cameras on their person. A couple of years ago, a foreign student had the crud kicked out of him by a couple of cops, (before the personal cameras) but there was a lot of audio. The kid was accusing the cops of racism and excessive force. The audio helped to prove this wrong. The kid just was not doing what he was told to do. I am sure there is a little more to it than that, but at least he was not shot. However, this was the incident caused the SJPD go to video cameras.

This story makes me really think about my choice to carry concealed, and how I might handle being 'outed.' Maybe that is what should be discussed, rather than all the hypotheticals about the cops, witnesses & victim here? What woul YOU do if outed in Costco/Walmart/the bank???