Posted on 11/11/2010 3:22:56 PM PST by Casey Hendrickson KDOX
“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.
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...
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?
So did the cop ask him to hand it over?
“...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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Yes you do have an agenda...
Facts do not cease to exist simply because you chose to ignore them...
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!
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.