Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Metro Officers, Sheriff, & District Attorney Oppose Changes To Coroner's Inquest
Casey Hendrickson & Heather Kydd on KDOX ^ | Casey Hendrickson

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 ...


TOPICS: Government; Local News; Politics
KEYWORDS: donutwatch; erikscott; inquest; lasvegas; lawenforcement; metro
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 11/11/2010 3:23:03 PM PST by Casey Hendrickson KDOX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Casey Hendrickson KDOX
Welcome to FR.
I followed the Scott shooting blog on the Sun. It was of interest, and not a little hysteria, here. What did you find so odious about the Scott inquest? The shopper witnesses with no connection to Costco or the cops pretty much said it was justified. A few, as I recall, were concealed carry people who said Scott caused the shooting.

Regardless of the system and the need to reform it, do you have any insight as to why the Scott shooting inquest was rigged?

2 posted on 11/11/2010 3:33:22 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

Did you go to the link?


3 posted on 11/11/2010 3:44:49 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Casey Hendrickson KDOX

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.


4 posted on 11/11/2010 3:48:15 PM PST by NV Lawdog (In God I trust; Everybody else keep your hands where I can see them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: DJ MacWoW

Yes, hence the questions.


6 posted on 11/11/2010 4:03:39 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Casey Hendrickson KDOX

Pimp my blog live on KDOX!


7 posted on 11/11/2010 4:07:30 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

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.

Yuck.

What a terrible way to treat a dead body.


8 posted on 11/11/2010 4:08:57 PM PST by Chickensoup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NV Lawdog; IrishCatholic; Casey Hendrickson KDOX

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.


9 posted on 11/11/2010 4:09:44 PM PST by Mr Rogers (When an ass brays, don't reply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

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.


10 posted on 11/11/2010 4:19:49 PM PST by nkycincinnatikid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
All I had was the blogs that followed the testimony and the online press reports. But I do recall that the weapon was holstered. That wasn't glossed over. But also that Scott didn't follow commands but reached and drew the weapon and pointed it at the officer. Was that an inaccurate report? If it wasn't, I don't think anyone would bet their life on whether they could identify the weapon, and condition of the weapon, when pointed directly at them by a person failing to obey a command.

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?

11 posted on 11/11/2010 4:21:53 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nkycincinnatikid
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/coroners-inquest-erik-scott/

The Sun had day by blogging on the inquest. If you follow the blog posts it should run down what testimony was covered.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/
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?

12 posted on 11/11/2010 4:29:21 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

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...


13 posted on 11/11/2010 4:39:59 PM PST by Mr Rogers (When an ass brays, don't reply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic; nkycincinnatikid

” 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?


14 posted on 11/11/2010 4:44:49 PM PST by Mr Rogers (When an ass brays, don't reply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

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.


15 posted on 11/11/2010 4:50:50 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

So? What do I care what you believe?


16 posted on 11/11/2010 4:52:01 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

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.


17 posted on 11/11/2010 4:53:43 PM PST by nkycincinnatikid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

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?


18 posted on 11/11/2010 4:55:46 PM PST by Mr Rogers (When an ass brays, don't reply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Why would he pull out his gun when a cop was pointing a gun at him? Why not just leave it there?


19 posted on 11/11/2010 4:58:47 PM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nkycincinnatikid
I gave you the links, I even gave you a quote.
If you are too lazy to read, that is your problem.
You thought to be snotty with your post and got slapped down instead. You don't like it? I don't care.

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?

20 posted on 11/11/2010 5:10:41 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic; nkycincinnatikid

“What I do get is vacuous opinions by people weaving their vision of what happened out of thin air.”

Nope. You got facts, handed to you. You ignore them.

Instead, you cite a witness who says Scott lifted his shirt with his left hand to clear his right rear hip, pulled a gun, and threatened the cops so the cops had to shoot him. With the gun in the holster, and TWO seconds from spoken word to first shot.

We have facts. The holstered gun on the ground. The audio. And a man dead 6 seconds after he passed Mosher, with Mosher not recognizing him as “The Threat”.

And you defend the inquest as fair and accurate.


21 posted on 11/11/2010 5:20:30 PM PST by Mr Rogers (When an ass brays, don't reply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

Some cops want you to hand the gun over. That may have been what he was expecting, particularly if he knew the gun wasn’t loaded...


22 posted on 11/11/2010 5:21:31 PM PST by Mr Rogers (When an ass brays, don't reply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

My friend sorry but I saw nothing corroborating your absolute statement in those links.
Pardon, perhaps I have a lazy eye or a lazy brain.
Can you show me the others, the concealed carriers who stated what you claimed that they stated?


23 posted on 11/11/2010 5:23:57 PM PST by nkycincinnatikid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

So did the cop ask him to hand it over?


24 posted on 11/11/2010 6:17:59 PM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: nkycincinnatikid

“...The shopper witnesses with no connection to Costco or the cops pretty much said it was justified. A few, as I recall, were concealed carry people who said Scott caused the shooting.”

Is an absolute statement? How about “pretty much” and “as I recall”.
Be honest or go away. Read the links, honestly, and then understand that they are not comprehensive.

Now let’s take that first in context:
“I followed the Scott shooting blog on the Sun. It was of interest, and not a little hysteria, here. What did you find so odious about the Scott inquest?”

The question, still unanswered and of little interest to the closed minds here, is what was defective about the inquest?

All heat and no light.

So, after giving you the first concealed carrier quote from the link, here is the second, from memory, that I had to dig up because you DID NOT read the blogs of the inquest:

“Steve Albright was also shopping at Costco with his wife and two children when they were told to evacuate.

Albright saw someone point Scott out to a police officer, who then said “police” to Scott. Scott turned to face the officer and the officer said, “Get down, get down.”

He said Scott’s right hand reached toward his back-right pocket.

“Muscle memory tells me what that means,” he said, referencing the motion Scott made. Albright has a concealed weapon permit and said he has drawn a gun thousands of times.

Scott reached toward his pocket deliberately; “It was definitely an intentional, smooth move,” he said.

There was something in Scott’s hands, but he didn’t wait to see what it was, Albright said. He said he turned to get his family and get away before hearing shots fired.”

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/25/erik-scott-inquest-day4/

Now, I’ve showed you. Go with God.


25 posted on 11/11/2010 6:21:36 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

No. You are wrong.
1. “Fact: Gun in holster. Fact: not a threat.”
The first is a fact. The second is simply your biased opinion.

2. I cite witnesses in direct response to a request to show concealed weapons holders were among the witnesses. I not only did, I provided the links. What quality they were as witnesses and how accurate they were I don’t have a clue, but neither do you.

3. “And you defend the inquest as fair and accurate.”
Another opinion made up by you. I don’t know if it was fair and accurate. I asked why it wasn’t. So far, no response.

I don’t ignore facts, but I do understand what they are. You have been corrected enough for tonight. On this thread I have looked for the original poster to provide any new facts as to why the inquest was not valid. I wouldn’t mind any one providing a fact as to why it wasn’t valid. But what I get is:

“What I do get is vacuous opinions by people weaving their vision of what happened out of thin air.”

Sad.


26 posted on 11/11/2010 6:30:46 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic; Mr Rogers

What’s sad is that you ignored the timeline given BY THEM and ignore it’s implications. Not all cops are rotten but neither are they all the Lone Ranger.


27 posted on 11/11/2010 6:58:46 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Pity. You didn't learn anything, did you?
Let me recap for you since you were late:

Question-What was wrong with the inquest?
Answer-Nothing so far. We are still waiting for that answer.

That's pretty much it. All the rest is ignorance.

28 posted on 11/11/2010 7:06:50 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic; DJ MacWoW

“1. “Fact: Gun in holster. Fact: not a threat.”
The first is a fact. The second is simply your biased opinion.”

Nope. He could not have fired his gun. It was not a threat. That isn’t opinion, and if there had been a cross-examination, the inquest would have demonstrated it to be true. But then, the inquest was faulty. It didn’t delve into inconvenient facts.

“2. I cite witnesses in direct response to a request to show concealed weapons holders were among the witnesses. I not only did, I provided the links. What quality they were as witnesses and how accurate they were I don’t have a clue, but neither do you.”

On the contrary, the witness was wrong. In two seconds, what he said could not have transpired. Nor does anyone use their left hand to pull their shirt away from a gun on the rear right hip. It did not happen. It doesn’t match the known facts.

“I don’t know if it was fair and accurate. I asked why it wasn’t. So far, no response.”

I’ve given you examples of why, and pointed out that other large cites regularly find fault during their inquests - 33% and 50%, versus 0% for Las Vegas.

“What I do get is vacuous opinions by people weaving their vision of what happened out of thin air.”

Facts. Discussed. But not by you. You no more listen to facts than the inquest did.


29 posted on 11/11/2010 7:08:01 PM PST by Mr Rogers (When an ass brays, don't reply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic; Mr Rogers

You were told one of the problems with the inquest. The impossible timeline was never questioned. You ignore it because it doesn’t fit your agenda.


30 posted on 11/11/2010 7:09:25 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

No, the cop did not ask him to hand it over. However, in the confusion of those two seconds, several witnesses claimed he was told to, but the audio tape doesn’t back it up.

The problem is the speed. Two seconds. Less than one second from the final command to first shot.

I carry concealed. If I were leaving a store, and a cop shouted at me, and two seconds after the first word opened fire, how well would I respond? Probably not well.

And why shoot at all? The guy was exiting the store quietly. He walked past the cop without arousing the cop’s suspicions. Six seconds from the guy in the audio tape saying ‘they don’t see him’ to gunfire, and we KNOW Scott wasn’t trying to hurt anyone - he couldn’t.

So why? That is what the inquest needed to look at, but refused. Instead, they tried to set Scott up as committing suicide by cop.


31 posted on 11/11/2010 7:14:10 PM PST by Mr Rogers (When an ass brays, don't reply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Wrong again.
But then, I am getting tired of trying to teach you the difference between fact and your opinions.
1. Still your opinion.

2. Your opinion of the witnesses testimony is immaterial. The reason to cite them was the request to find them and provide proof of them to someone who was playing a gotcha game and got spanked.

Your citing of other cities is immaterial. But you draw implications from that immaterial point.

“What I do get is vacuous opinions by people weaving their vision of what happened out of thin air.”

I would discuss facts but the only thing we have to go on is the original reporting, which aren't facts, and the blog of the inquest, which also aren't facts but provide quotes which could be factual if accurately quoted and those quotes were verified as factual.

But don't let any of that get in the way your own personal reality.

32 posted on 11/11/2010 7:26:31 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Opinion, not fact.
The only agenda I have is to help special needs Freepers think. In that I don't seem to be getting any headway.
33 posted on 11/11/2010 7:29:31 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic; Casey Hendrickson KDOX
I still want to know why the inquest process is flawed. So far, nothing.

Irish... for you, nothing, absolutely nothing anyone could provide to you would convince you that cops in this country can do wrong.

To Casey Hendrickson KDOX, you've really come to the wrong website if you think you'll find a friendly ear here when talking about the misconduct of cops and the corruption of the criminal justice system as a whole.

Around here at "Free" Republic, you're more likely to be censored and put in time out by the moderators or banned than to find a sympathetic ear.

The cops who lurk and post here are all too quick to run to the mods, complain and get you tossed. Best to just stick to such topics as Obamas birth certificate...

Good luck and welcome to the forum!

34 posted on 11/11/2010 7:31:36 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

Yes you do have an agenda...

Facts do not cease to exist simply because you chose to ignore them...


35 posted on 11/11/2010 7:35:18 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Casey Hendrickson KDOX

Welcome to FreeRepublic.

There are Freepers here who are very much outraged by what happened to Scott. That the cops and CostCo are at fault for this upstanding young man’s death is tragic, and should not be allowed to happen again.

Keep us posted!


36 posted on 11/11/2010 7:45:05 PM PST by TruthConquers (Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

The timeline given by the DA is not an opinion. It’s documented. You just can’t accept facts that may indict a cop. Like I said, not all cops ride white horses.


37 posted on 11/11/2010 7:46:10 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Well good. All is right with the world. You scared me on the other thread when I agreed with you.

Now you are back to being the cop hating idiot I know so well.

What is missing here, are facts. This time and last time the Scott thread ran. I don't know if Scott's shooting was valid or not. The closest I can come to actual facts are the Sun blogs I linked to. That's the point. The blog that follows the inquest doesn't show a flawed inquest process. That is why the original question on this thread, still unanswered, is why the inquest process is flawed.

Facts don't matter to you. You hate cops and that's it. That's why you aren't honest and I've told you many times you aren't.

Now what has been attempted, and totally discredited, is the attempt to paint my position as ignoring facts or having an agenda. What I have done, and continue to do, is turn back from the strawmen and point out the difference between facts and opinion.

I have an open mind. You do not. I have never gone to a moderator about you and have told you I don't chase you around threads warning others about your cop hating postings.

If Casey Hendrickson is honest, he should indicate why the coroner and the inquest is flawed, or corrupt. So far, nothing.

Good to see you back in your element. You scared me earlier.

38 posted on 11/11/2010 7:47:29 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
OK, what is the link to the timeline by the D.A?

“You just can't accept facts that may indict a cop.”
Incorrect and unsupported. Simply made up by you. Please provide the link because all along, I have been trying to get the facts. That would help to see what the timeline indicates to you.

39 posted on 11/11/2010 7:53:20 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Funny coming from you.

Do you have an agenda on cops? Hmm?

What are the facts? The only ones provided so far are the links by me. And even those are qualified, by me.

Do you know what facts are?

40 posted on 11/11/2010 7:55:45 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic; Mr Rogers

The timeline was given at the inquest. I didn’t keep a link to it. Maybe Mr Rogers has it.


41 posted on 11/11/2010 7:57:27 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
Facts don't matter to you. You hate cops and that's it. That's why you aren't honest and I've told you many times you aren't.

As I've asked you before and NEVER received a reply, I'll ask again... How is the simple act of posting a TV news story or newspaper article cop hating?

How is that so? I

'm sorry there are so many of them, new stories about criminal and corrupt cops but you need to address that with the cops who are committing those crimes, not the people who post the articles.

Your no different than a lib who calls anyone who says or writes anything critical of Obama a racist. Infact that is the perfect analogy of what you are doing.

You cannot refute the facts, so you attack the messenger.

Again, I'm sorry for posting so many news articles that detail criminal actions by your fellow cops. But again... you need to take the quantity argument up with them. After all its not me breaking the laws, its them. I'm just repeating the news stories here.

42 posted on 11/11/2010 8:01:38 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

OK, I understand the lack of a link. Almost all the information is filtered at least once through the media. The Clark County Coroner charges $1 a page for transcripts so to actually access the testimony is not possible.

But don’t you see? This or any other topic...say global warming or the health care bill, getting information second hand, third hand, or just by opinion about what it might be, aren’t facts.

Once again. Is the inquest process flawed? Why is it flawed? Is it corrupt or simply the results weren’t what people wanted?

So much heat, almost no light. All there is are opinions backed by almost no facts.

Now, nowhere has there been any discussion on this thread about Scott’s drug use, misuse, anger, questionable lifestyle, being impaired, anything. I didn’t bring it up, because I am not trying to have a ‘side’ or ‘agenda’. I am trying to find out why the inquest process is flawed, and why this inquest was flawed.

Still no facts, only opinion.


43 posted on 11/11/2010 8:08:43 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
My OPINION is that the biggest flaw is that only one side is given.

Having talked to Nevada residents on here, the PTB are all in each others pockets in Las Vegas. The locals know that they are all crooked. And they are afraid of them. Fearing your own police force and those that are supposed to keep them honest is dangerous.

44 posted on 11/11/2010 8:25:30 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

Of course I’ve replied to you. Remember when I called you out on your omission of the heroic school resource officer in Tennessee that threw herself in front of the vice principal to protect him? Or the responding officers that killed the gunman? Remember back in the beginning of September pinging cop stories to me? Rember when I told you I don’t chase you around warning others? Remember? Of course I’ve replied to you.

You only choose negative stories. ONLY. You are the poster child for cop haters here. Have you ever talked about being mistreated by the cops? I’m not the only one that’s pegged you as such. You know that.

Now, what facts are in question here? I seem to be doing all the asking. Why was the inquest process flawed? You came in here with
“ Irish... for you, nothing, absolutely nothing anyone could provide to you would convince you that cops in this country can do wrong.

To Casey Hendrickson KDOX, you’ve really come to the wrong website if you think you’ll find a friendly ear here when talking about the misconduct of cops and the corruption of the criminal justice system as a whole.

Around here at “Free” Republic, you’re more likely to be censored and put in time out by the moderators or banned than to find a sympathetic ear.

The cops who lurk and post here are all too quick to run to the mods, complain and get you tossed. Best to just stick to such topics as Obamas birth certificate...

Good luck and welcome to the forum!”

So now you accuse me of the behavior of what you just posted? Well, you’re the liberal here pal. Good to see you back to form.

Why is the Nevada coroner inquest corrupt? That was the question. Since you must have the facts, what are they?


45 posted on 11/11/2010 8:26:38 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Fair enough.


46 posted on 11/11/2010 8:28:19 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

Is it true that in over 200 cases the “Corners Inquest” in Las Vegas has never, not once found a shooting to be unjustified?

And is it true the Metro Officers are saying they would no longer take part in the inquest system if the rules are changed?

According to http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/25689840/detail.html

Thats exactly what they are saying... kinda strange...

Seems to me they know they have a good thing here, an inquest system that has never found, not one shooting unjustified. Folks want to change the process so the cops are balking because their little kangaroo court racket protection scheme is about to come tumbling down.

The District Attorney to take a reduced role in the process because of the close relationship between the DA and Metro.

One attorney that represents the public and the deceased, while another would represent the officers.

And there would also now be cross-examination of witnesses and officers by both of those attorneys.

Seems fairly innocuous to me, wonder why the cops are all howling and objecting to any changes?


47 posted on 11/11/2010 8:32:48 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic; DJ MacWoW

You cannot teach what you obviously do not know.

The gun could not be fired in the holster. I have a holster just like it, and I tried it with an empty gun. No workee. And with no round chambered, the slide would have to be racked. That means NO THREAT. Period. It isn’t up for discussion. You don’t get a vote nor are you allowed an opinion. It could not have happened.

“Your citing of other cities is immaterial. “

Of course. Las Vegas has perfect cops who have never ever been found to use bad judgment. That other cities have human cops is irrelevant in discussing the question of how inquests are run in Las Vegas.

“and the blog of the inquest, which also aren’t facts but provide quotes which could be factual if accurately quoted and those quotes were verified as factual.”

View the time line for yourself:

http://www.lvrj.com/multimedia/Costco-shooting-911-calls-played-at-Erik-Scott-coroners-inquest-103659964.html

Other quotes found in reporting showed Mosher claiming to have said things he did not say (the audio tape exists), and Mosher claiming it was easy to shoot a gun like that in the holster, which is false - although no one called Mosher on it.

Twist and turn as you wish, but there ARE facts. Facts not discussed at this inquest, which was too busy trying to show Scott was trying to commit suicide...


48 posted on 11/11/2010 8:35:16 PM PST by Mr Rogers (When an ass brays, don't reply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Seems the family is suing Metro PD over this, so I guess we will get the facts in the civil case and not from a wildly tainted “Corners Inquest” that has never not once found a cop unjustified in any shooting in its entire history...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NV_POLICE_SLAYING_VEGAS_COSTCO_NVOL-?SITE=CODEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


49 posted on 11/11/2010 8:47:32 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Well, what does this have to do with anything?

But, OK. Even though it doesn't, let's look at it.

I don't know if 200 cases have been reviewed and found justified or not. I don't know if any of those cases were followed up by a civil trial. I don't know if there were civil rights violations alleged to the Justice Department. I don't know the particulars of any of them. The closest I got was a newspaper article indicating that the 200 number started in 1976 and only one was found to be criminally negligent. I have no idea if that is out of line with other large metropolitan areas. I don't know how they handle police shooting reviews.

Next, your hatred is peeking out a bit. “cops are balking because their little kangaroo court racket protection scheme is about to come tumbling down.”

Oh, yea, it's me that is discrediting the messenger.

The problem I would see as an officer is that mandatory participation without representation is giving away your rights without any legal protection. There is nothing innocuous about that. I doubt you would talk to the cops or appear in court without an attorney yet those are the rights you would take away from the officer. Why would they want to do that? You wouldn't.

Now a quick glance at the Coroner's office site shows they performed 1,412 in 2007, their latest updated stats. The coroner, P. Michael Murphy, doesn't seem to be a medical examiner, but an administrator. There are forensic scientists that do the actual autopsies. Interesting. How has that office evolved in the past thirty four years?

If Nevada wants to change their system, well they should go ahead and do it. The police and sheriff will just have to adjust. It is the legislature that sets the rules. Once the state does it, Clark County will have to go along. It appears they are considering changing it anyway at their level. How do they compare with other counties? I don't know.

But hey, thanks for that trip to nowhere. It was interesting. I now know more about Nevada than I did before.

50 posted on 11/11/2010 9:06:13 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson