Azazello1313 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 (edited) ...I almost always side with the cops, against inane cries of "brutality". but stories like this make me want to wretch. Edited September 17, 2010 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 ...I almost always side with the cops, against inane cries of "brutality". but stories like this make me want to wretch. Assuming there are no key details missing from the story, I agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Everyone is at fault here, Costco, the police, and the guy that got shot. Part of carrying is keeping your weapon reasonably concealed at all times, which the guy that got shot clearly didn't do. I'm not sure about NV laws, but in Texas if a store notices you are armed and you are asked to leave you are supposed to leave, or face criminal trespassing charges. Cosco shouldn't hire a 20 year old kid for security. It appears as though the cops shot first and asked questions later. There is no excuse for firing as many times as they did. Still the guy that got shot should have just got down on the ground and kept his hands away from his weapon. IMO the guy that got shot deserves most of the blame for putting himself in that situation by not properly concealing his firearm, and not leaving when asked to do so. I can certainly understand the cops taking the first shot, particularly if the guy reached for his gun, I don't care what he said he was doing. Still there was no call for shooting the guy more than once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Pretty telling that none of the witnesses who sided with the police are quoted. To hear the side of the story presented by Scott’s family, friends, and some eyewitnesses, Erik Scott’s death was the result of ignorance and embellishment on the part of the Costco staff, and a combative, deterministic mindset from responding officers. Other witnesses and the police claim that Eric Scott was armed and acting irrationally, and that his own actions led to his shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 17, 2010 Author Share Posted September 17, 2010 if he had a gun in his hand, I can see them shooting. otherwise...I can see no justification whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 if he had a gun in his hand, I can see them shooting. otherwise...I can see no justification whatsoever. Unless they thought he was about to have a gun in his hand. The cops won't wait until you've drawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 if he had a gun in his hand, I can see them shooting. otherwise...I can see no justification whatsoever. Based on the story you linked to, he was reaching for the gun. While witnesses say he said he was going to disarm, he never should have reached for it. He should have gotten on the ground with his hands as far away from the gun as possible. I see no justification for shooting him more than once, but have a hard time faulting the police for shooting him the first time if like witnesses stated he was reaching for the gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Based on the story you linked to, he was reaching for the gun. While witnesses say he said he was going to disarm, he never should have reached for it. He should have gotten on the ground with his hands as far away from the gun as possible. I see no justification for shooting him more than once, but have a hard time faulting the police for shooting him the first time if like witnesses stated he was reaching for the gun. ALWAYS KEEP YOUR HANDS UP IF YOU HAVE A FIREARM ON YOU!! DO NOT REACH DOWN OR MAKE ANY MOTION THAT CAN BE CONSTRUED AS REACHING DOWN!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 (edited) Based on the story you linked to, he was reaching for the gun. While witnesses say he said he was going to disarm, he never should have reached for it. He should have gotten on the ground with his hands as far away from the gun as possible. I see no justification for shooting him more than once, but have a hard time faulting the police for shooting him the first time if like witnesses stated he was reaching for the gun. ALWAYS KEEP YOUR HANDS UP IF YOU HAVE A FIREARM ON YOU!! DO NOT REACH DOWN OR MAKE ANY MOTION THAT CAN BE CONSTRUED AS REACHING DOWN!! While I agree with the both of the above quotes, the story says one of the officers was yelling for him to drop his weapon... Erik turned to find three officers facing him, guns drawn, and all three shouting different commands: “Get on the ground!” “Drop your weapon!” “Keep your hands up!” If cops are drawn on me, no way I am reaching for my gun. But it does sound like that's what he was being instructed to do (at least, that's how the story goes)... Edited September 17, 2010 by Delicious_bass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 While I agree with the both of the above quotes, the story says one of the officers was yelling for him to drop his weapon... Regardless the guy put himself in that position to begin with for not properly concealing his handgun, and also for not leaving when initially asked. He should have put his hands on his head and gone to his knees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Regardless the guy put himself in that position to begin with for not properly concealing his handgun, and also for not leaving when initially asked. He should have put his hands on his head and gone to his knees. No argument on that. If the guy would have just left when asked, none of this would have happened. If an employee tells me to leave (whether I am in the wrong or not) I am out of there and not giving them another cent of my $. But I digress... The guy should have done a better job of concealing his piece and he should have left when asked. That said, sounds as though the police definitely acted overly aggressively given the details of the story. Lots of blame to go around and a really needless incident Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Sounds like a real mess. Everything prior to the standoff is, or pretty much should be, irrelevant to the issue of whether the cops acted appropriately. Certainly, if the dude reached for his weapon in such a way that the cops reasonably thought he was going to draw it with ill intent, then he had it coming. If he had one hand up and he was slowly reaching for his weapon as if he was going to disarm himself, well maybe he had it coming. A dumb thing to do probably, but it may not merit catching a bullet for it. I bet you that it was an incredibly confusing scene, particularly if there are three cops there barking different commands. I mean, what do you do if two cops are pointing their guns at you, one yells "Don't move!" and the other one yells "Put your hands up!" I carry a concealed handgun on occasion, and I think that I would know how to handle the situation if a cop drew down (sorry perch) on me - putting your hands on your head and dropping to your knees seems like the thing to do - but what if the cop is freaking out? Plenty of regular god fearing folk might get skittish looking down the barrel of a gun and act imprudently. I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codwagon Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 las vegas review journal alleged roid and pain med abuse. Drew down on his neighbor last March. but it is the two ex-wives who said/say that he is a violent explosive DB that convince me that we are better off without this dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.