Skip to comments.Metro Officers, Sheriff, & District Attorney Oppose Changes To Coroner's Inquest
Posted on 11/11/2010 3:22:56 PM PST by Casey Hendrickson KDOX
This is a post I don't want to write. Unfortunately, I have to.
Yesterday on the program we discussed the proposed changes in the horrendously biased coroner's inquest process here in Las Vegas. During that segment, I had the lamentable task of telling you that many police officers, the Sheriff, and even the DA all opposed the basic changes to the inquest process demanded by the public.
(Excerpt) Read more at caseyandheathershow.com ...
Regardless of the system and the need to reform it, do you have any insight as to why the Scott shooting inquest was rigged?
Did you go to the link?
It amazes me at how most citizens are up in arms about the inquest process. Very few, if any, other jurisdictions have this open of a process. I have spoken with friends who are both cops and lawyers in other states who not only are amazed at the transparency, but question the need and expense of such a process when the DA has already determined that no criminal actions exist.
Yes, hence the questions.
Pimp my blog live on KDOX!
In my state if you die in your car in a car accident, the whole thing is loaded on a tow-trailer, a tarp thrown over it and it is brought to the state forensic unit to wait until the coroner arrives in the am.
What a terrible way to treat a dead body.
There were a lot of things glossed over in the inquest, and it was possible because only the DA could make points. An alert and knowledgeable jury would catch it. The average jury would not.
For example, Scott’s gun was found holstered - so unless the cops tampered with evidence to make themselves look bad, the FACT is that Scott did not unholster his gun. That speaks volumes about intent.
For example, the hammer on Scott’s 1911 gun was down, which normally means there wasn’t even a round in the chamber. No one asked the cops if the chamber was empty, and many wouldn’t know that a 1911 gun would thus need to be unholstered and the slide racked to arm the gun. The only testimony the jury heard was the cop claiming it would be “easy” to shoot the gun from its holster - which is a damn lie, and any cross examination would reveal that...I’d have loved to see Mosher show how he could have fired the gun from the holster.
Also, the time line flashed on the screen by the DA shows that there were only SIX SECONDS from when the cops didn’t know who Scott was to opening fire. It showed TWO seconds from first command to firing. And no one asked, “What happened to justify opening fire in two seconds from the first spoken word? What about his behavior that day revealed he needed to be killed less than 6 seconds after he passed quietly past you without you recognizing him as the troublemaker?”
THOSE are questions that needed to be looked at to see if the LVPD responded correctly. And they were not, nor could they, be asked.
Very interesting if not very informative.
Who were the concealed carry witnesses who stated that Scott caused the shooting?
What were their statements to that effect?
Please provide those details.
It should be easy.
Now, not to get too far in the weeds on this and kick up the hysteria that occurred on past threads, I was more interested in the allegations that the inquest was a dog and pony show. That is the question I had. The Sun followed the testimony each day and described the witness testimony, has any info come out about witnesses that refute those that testified at the inquest? Anything to show the DA refused to have them testify?
The Sun had day by blogging on the inquest. If you follow the blog posts it should run down what testimony was covered.
This is from the third day's blog:
“Christopher Villareale was shopping at Costco the day of the shooting and also is a concealed weapon permit holder.
Villareale said he was one of the last people to leave the store and wasn't far from Scott when he was shot.
He testified that an officer yelled at Scott to get on the ground, And Mr. Scott is just standing there not doing anything.
Scott then lifted his shirt with his left hand and someone yelled no, no, Villareale said.
Scott then pulled his right arm forward with a gun in his hand, he said.
Villareale said it appeared to him that Scott was holding the gun by the handle, but he couldn't tell if the gun was in a holster since the gun was black.
The officer shot Scott, who turned, dropped the gun, was shot again, then fell to the ground.”
If you know a more detailed source, let me know. I'm interested in the facts of this case, but there are limited objective sources. The first blog stated there were 22 witnesses scheduled to testify and the blog only hits highlights.
There, it was easy, wasn't it?
Much of the witness testimony was wrong - as proven by physical evidence. Scott did NOT aim his gun at the cops. Not possible. No one aims a holstered gunat anyone, and Scott would have known the chamber was empty (if it was - in a survey I found, only 1 in about 40, IIRC, admitted to carrying a 1911 loaded with the hammer down) - and no one asked the question.
And in two seconds, Scott could not have complied with the command to get on his knees - he had at best 1 second from the time the sentence finished to bullet impact. There needs to be time to hear, understand and comply, and one second or less doesn’t qualify.
Also, the DA spent the first day laying the idea that Scott committed suicide by cop - yet the holstered gun proved that wasn’t true. Based on physical evidence, Scott never attempted to shoot the cop. So why did the DA claim Scott was suicidal, and suggest this was his way of committing it?
Gun in holster. 98% chance the chamber was empty. Two seconds from first word to first shot. Six seconds from not recognizing Scott was “The Threat” to opening fire. No discussion in the courtroom about the implications of any of those.
That adds up to a worthless inquest, which may be why there has NEVER been an ‘unjustified’ shooting by a cop in Las Vegas. In NYC, it runs around 30%, and in Los Angeles, it runs around 50% - just some numbers for comparison.
Good thing the cops in LV are perfect, unlike their NY & LA counterparts...
” Villareale said he was one of the last people to leave the store and wasn’t far from Scott when he was shot. / He testified that an officer yelled at Scott to get on the ground, And Mr. Scott is just standing there not doing anything. / Scott then lifted his shirt with his left hand and someone yelled no, no, Villareale said. / Scott then pulled his right arm forward with a gun in his hand, he said. / Villareale said it appeared to him that Scott was holding the gun by the handle, but he couldn’t tell if the gun was in a holster since the gun was black.”
According to the DA timeline, two seconds from first word to first shot. May I suggest that Villareale, like most witnesses, saw what he expected to see. That is why nearly half of all witnesses to a plane crash report it being on fire, even though nothing burns...
Also, Scott’s gun was carried on his RIGHT hip at about 5 o’clock - I’m supposed to believe he lifted his shirt from his rear right hip with his left hand?
All you have is opinion based on nothing other than what you want to believe.
Why would I argue that?
I still want to know why the inquest process is flawed. So far, nothing.
So? What do I care what you believe?
Sir, a few is not one, is it not?
Your post asks us to believe you that a few concealed carry witnesses believed Scott caused the incident.
Please carry on .
You yourself say it is easy to complete.
What I WANT to believe?
Fact: Gun in holster. Fact: not a threat. Fact: shots fired, according to the DA, 2 seconds after the first word, and less than 6 seconds from when Scott passed Mosher without Mosher recognizing him as ‘the bad guy’.
Seems to me you are the one ignoring facts so you can proclaim this an open and fair inquest - just like the 100% of previous inquests that found no wrongdoing.
Just curious - why do YOU believe no LVPD cop has ever been found to be in error by an inquest, when the rates are 1/3 and up elsewhere?
Why would he pull out his gun when a cop was pointing a gun at him? Why not just leave it there?
Now I see the hysteria has started again with you and the others, so let me give it one more try before moving on.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams.
I do not say the shooting was justified, or not justified. I do say that facts matter. We don't have them. Many here don't seem to need them. The closest I have seen is the reporting in the Sun which followed the inquest on a blog with quotes from testimony. I gave you those links.
Now whether it is this case, or another topic, you can be, and probably are, led around by the nose to whatever conclusion someone wants you to have because you don't think for yourself.
I asked the poster of the thread why the inquest was bad. I have yet to hear of why the process was flawed or fixed. What I do get is vacuous opinions by people weaving their vision of what happened out of thin air.
All I have were the original reporting and the blog. I don't say with confidence whether the inquest was proper. I asked why it wasn't. Still waiting.
Now, put down the Kool Aid and think for yourself. Read the blog of the inquest. If you have a link to a primary source I would read it. You should post it. Until then, I assume you have nothing to contribute?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.