Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Erik Scott, USMA Class of 1994, Shot at Costco
USMA Class of 1994 ^ | 8/30/2010 | William Scott

Posted on 09/27/2010 9:40:32 AM PDT by pgyanke

Erik Scott's Death - A Father's Statement 8/30/2010

Erik's family would like to keep our class updated on what is occurring in the case of Erik's death.

Below is a statement from Erik's father, William Scott.

Please support the Scott Family by following: http://erikbscott.com Twitter: @IMOErikBscott Facebook: In Memory of Erik Scott Twitter: @IMOErikBScott YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/InMemoryofErikScott

Erik Scott's Death

Erik B. Scott, a 1994 U.S. Military Academy at West Point graduate, was shot and killed by three Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) officers in front of the Summerlin Costco store on 10 July 2010. The shooting is still under investigation, but here are the basic facts, based on numerous eyewitness reports:

Erik was carrying a legally registered concealed firearm, while he and his girlfriend were shopping at Costco. He also had a concealed carry permit in his wallet, issued by the same Metro department that killed him.

When Erik squatted on the floor to verify that three metal water bottles would fit into a soft-sided, zip-up cooler, a Costco employee saw the weapon. Erik's shirt had lifted up, revealing an inside-the-belt holstered pistol tucked into the back of his jeans. A civil interchange ensued, and the employee informed Erik of Costco's policy that guns were not allowed inside company stores -- although there are no signs to that effect posted outside or inside the facility. Erik calmly responded that his gun was legal and that he had a concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit on his person. Like many other Boston Scientific pacemaker sales reps, Erik carried a concealed weapon for personal protection, because reps are required to enter dangerous areas of the city at all hours of the day and night to serve patients fitted with cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators. Contrary to wildly erroneous news reports, we don't believe Erik had a second gun on his person.

The Costco employee apparently reported to the store's manager that Erik was carrying a gun. The manager, in turn, informed a young, plainclothes security person, who subsequently placed a 911 call to the police. The contents of that 911 call have not been released, but Northwest Metro cops rushed to the store in overwhelming force. Perhaps as many as 15 police cruisers, a helicopter, an incident-command team and an ambulance were dispatched.

Costco managers announced via the PA system that the store was being evacuated. Unaware that the evacuation had anything to do with him, Erik and his girlfriend walked out with the crowd, passing three Metro officers waiting at the entrance. The Costco undercover security guard pointed to Erik, and the cops started yelling at Erik to stop and turn around.

Erik turned to find three officers facing him, guns drawn, and all three shouting different commands: "Get on the ground!" "Drop your weapon!" and "Keep your hands up!" Erik held his hands up, spoke calmly, told them he DID have a concealed firearm and a legal CCW and was an ex-Army officer. His girlfriend was screaming about Erik being a West Point grad, former Army officer, etc. Erik leaned to his left, hands still up, to expose the pistol inside his belt, and repeated, "I am disarming; I am disarming..." Witnesses say he started to lower his right hand, palm OUT, as if intending to remove holster and gun together — but never got the hand below his shoulder, when one of the cops (William Mosher, who had committed a fatal shooting in 2006) shot Erik in the chest with a .45-caliber weapon. Erik dropped to his knees, clearly in shock, his face a picture of disbelief. He was shot a second time and collapsed. The rest is ugly. The three officers unloaded again, firing a total of seven hollow-point rounds. At least five, possibly six, hit Erik in the back, after he was on the ground and dying.

The cops roughly handcuffed Erik's hands behind his back, and, in the words of an eyewitness, "tossed him onto a gurney [as if he were] a sack of potatoes."

Costco had numerous security cameras inside the store and at least four trained on the entrance portico, where the shooting took place. Metro officers immediately seized the surveillance-camera video data (computer hard disks), including backup drives. Within hours, Metro leaked "news" that the video may be "unusable," and that the hard drives had been sent to a forensics lab in Los Angeles. More than six weeks later, only Metro personnel have seen the video. Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, the Metro chief, continues to say that "there's probably no usable video" of events inside the store or of Erik's fatal shooting. He also has refused to release the 911 audio tape, even though Metro normally releases those 911 call tapes to the media within days.

There's been considerable media coverage of Erik's shooting, and many of the news reports are available on Las Vegas TV station and Las Vegas Review Journal newspaper websites. Erik's family and friends have done numerous interviews, as we search for the truth about Erik's slaying. Many people think one of our more-effective interviews was on Channel 8/KLAS TV with George Knapp of the "I-Team." (http://www.8newsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=12809131)

A Clark County Coroner's Inquest Hearing is scheduled for 22-23 September in Las Vegas. Considered to be unique in the U.S., this particular inquest process is heavily biased in favor of law enforcement personnel. A Las Vegas reporter referred to it as "police investigating police and reporting to police." In 34 years of inquests into more than 190 officer-involved shootings, only one officer has been found at fault — and he was never prosecuted.

Interested parties can follow developments in this case, as well as an "E-Team" weblog featuring commentary and insights, at: http://www.erikbscott.com

William B. Scott Erik's Father

*Note that this information was not created by USMA Class of 1994. All information was provided by the Scott Family in order to keep Erik's friends and classmates informed.*


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Military/Veterans; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: costco; donutwatch; erikscott; murderbycop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-102 next last
To: OneWingedShark

If someone takes in oxygen “to a degree which renders him incapable of safely exercising actual physical control of a firearm”, then oxygen would have made it illegal to carry.

I suspect that if the cops had handled it right, they would have stopped Scott by talking to him, then arrested him and he would have been fined/jailed for carrying with too many drugs in his system. The combo of witness testimony and blood sample would probably have sufficed for a conviction.

I’m not trying to argue that Scott had no blame, or that everything he did was right. He bears some of the blame for what happened. But he didn’t deserve to die. And if someone cannot tell from 6 feet if a guy is pulling a holster or a gun, then maybe his vision isn’t up to being a cop.

I realize “protect and serve” is a motto, not a legal requirement. However, following that motto is what makes good cops great, IMHO. Ignoring it is for cowards.


51 posted on 09/27/2010 1:21:13 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

“Training and experience tells you to fire the moment that someone goes for a gun. You do not wait for an explanation of their motives. As was pointed out by some of the witnesses who also had CCWs, they were also taught this in CCW class.”

Nope. Not in the class I took. In fact, I was specifically told that someone reaching for a gun might have nothing to do with justification for shooting. I was also told that cops will sometimes tell you to ‘drop it’ or ‘hand it over’...the 2 instructors debated if it was wise to obey or better to just stick your arms up and not move.

Based on recent events, I’m inclined to say put your hands up and make them shoot you in the armpit. And if the inquest is at Las Vegas, that will probably be called a justified shooting. After all, the LVPD has shot many unarmed men without any questions being raised.


52 posted on 09/27/2010 1:25:50 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

thank you for the info. was he legally taking the medicine?


53 posted on 09/27/2010 1:28:12 PM PDT by machogirl (First they came for my tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

were there innocent civilians that could have been injured or killed by that many bullets being fired? i’ve been to costco, there are always a lot of people in and out, and gathering around the doorway depending on what they have outside to look at.


54 posted on 09/27/2010 1:31:01 PM PDT by machogirl (First they came for my tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998; Secret Agent Man

Good review of police polls. Also note that in other large cities, cops sometimes fire improperly (30% error in NYC, 75% in LA). Good thing Las Vegas has a 0% error...

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Can-Citizens-Use-Guns-Competently


55 posted on 09/27/2010 1:32:06 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

i know people who have to use the morphine pain patch. they are fine going about daily tasts.


56 posted on 09/27/2010 1:32:29 PM PDT by machogirl (First they came for my tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
He was taking heavy doses of prescription drugs. So was Rush Limbaugh for a while - and he talked on national radio without anyone suspecting anything. What combo is best for chronic pain, including following a recent car accident, is something for doctors to debate. Morphine used in pain control controls pain. It enables the person taking it, not disables.

Was Rush also taking a potentially lethal dose of Xanax mixed with his painkillers?

What was STUPID was when they testified that Scott was taking lethal doses...if they had been lethal, the cops wouldn’t have had a chance to shoot him.

The article I read said the coroner, Alane Olson said he had "potentially" lethal doses of morphine and Xanax in his system. Morphine was nearly six times the normally lethal dosage, Xanax was near the high end of the normally lethal dosage.

57 posted on 09/27/2010 1:37:12 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Half of all Americans are above average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: machogirl
thank you for the info. was he legally taking the medicine?

Three of his doctors testified at the inquest, so he did have prescriptions. However, a prescription can't be refilled until it is almost expired. In Florida, I know morphine is prescribed short term, like five days. So to account for the levels in Scott's blood, he either overdosed the prescriptions he had, or he was doctor shopping to get multiple prescriptions or obtaining his drugs from an illegal source.

58 posted on 09/27/2010 1:43:32 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Half of all Americans are above average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MrB

This posting from William Scott is about a month old, and the sequence of events contained in it differs materially from the eyewitness testimony and other evidence submitted at the inquest. There is no testimony that Erik was told to disarm. There is no testimony that Erik spoke to any of the officers at all. There is no testimony that any officer other than Mosher was speaking to Erik, and only Mosher’s voice can be heard in the background of the 911 call recording.

While I have the greatest sympathy for William Scott, it is becomeing increasingly clear that the story he has been told, and is now re-telling, is incorrect.


59 posted on 09/27/2010 1:44:28 PM PDT by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You can never do more, you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke; Dexter Morgan; Secret Agent Man; freedomwarrior998

Secret Agent Man said:
>They are targeting ex-army now.
>They let the crooks keep living that carry concealed and kill the permit holder.
>I believe cops like this understand law abiding people are the real enemy they face, they will be the ones that would go after crooked cops. And that these kinds of cops will start taking them out now.

I think that may be more correct an assessment than people want to admit. There are so many conflicting laws, especially those contrary to the Constitution, that the Law-Enforcement/’justice’ System can literally make anyone into a criminal; fortunately it isn’t *quite* to the point where they can wantonly execute ‘offenders’ [such as Erik Scott] as a matter of course and w/o fear of repercussion.

However... given that Lon Horiuchi* is a free man does indicate that we are extremely close to that point.
*(the sniper that killed Mrs. Weaver thus breaking even the FBI’s *quite* permissive Rules of Engagement to consider all adult MALES as hostile/armed-and-dangerous)

Dexter Morgan said:
>And the police wonder why law-abiding citizens grow more and more hostile towards the extortionist authorities, even during routine department fundraising stops.
[and]
>From observation, it seems that police unions are among the staunchest supporters of violating the 2nd Amendment and wish to disarm the public.
>
>If they cannot accomplish this by law, then they can accomplish it by making the penalty for gun possession so severe—via public execution by cop—that people will become too afraid to exercise their right to carry. If the sentiment is that you will be shot if you carry in public, then concealed carry will cease.
>
>It’s ironic that the police will execute a law-abiding citizen, without trial, but protect convicted murderers in prison for life with three square meals, cable tv, and conjugal visits.

I believe you are correct; the police are experiencing a nose-dive in public opinion/support precisely because they have been all too eager to trumpet that they “protect and serve” while enforcing laws that are contrary to the State Constitution [where they reside] and/or the Federal Constitution... and then they pull the moral equivalent of the “we were only following orders” defense that we would not accept from German military officials in the Nuremberg Trials when they say crap like “we don’t make the laws; only enforce them.”

freedomwarrior998 said:
[on the topic of law-abiding citizenry vs police]
>I guess the aliens will be coming for your brain as well?

Funny you should belittle him like that. I have a story that corroborates his supposition, if only tangentially.
I live in New Mexico, an open-carry state, and one Wednesday I went to a social gathering where I apparently made some people nervous[though they never told me directly] and I was asked by a man I respect to put the gun out in my vehicle; I acquiesced and thought that everything was taken care of.... I was wrong.

Unbeknownest to me, several of the leaders in this social group had a meeting afterward and called my National Guard unit [I was enlisted at the time], from there the story went around the rumor-mill until [on Friday] someone called the police apparently reporting that I was at my house waving my gun around.

When the police had arrived, late morning, I’d already been at a friend’s house (he had the Friday off and we were working through Gears of War 2) for several hours. I got a call then saying that the police were there and to stay put, and after a while I got a call saying to go home. When I got there the police were waiting for me, but they were calmed down [I believe it was because of the transit-time and because a police Sgt I knew from my national guard unit had gotten there before I arrived]. I spent several hours talking with the Sgt and he said that I didn’t do anything illegal.

I found out later what had happened while I was away was that the police had entered the property with their weapons-drawn and that they would not identify or state their purpose for the lady next door who questioned them as to why they were peering into her van. They asked was if I lived there [I do, it’s a set of apartments] and told her to “get back in the house” as a response to inquiring as to their presence. No warrant was ever shown to anyone, and there were children around when the police entered the property guns-drawn.

So, in that incident we see that the police WILL act on hearsay [the report was made by someone not in the area and who had seen or heard NOTHING], that they WILL enter/search private property w/o a warrant [the lady’s van at the VERY least], that they [as an organization] will act aggressively even on reports of perfectly lawful behavior... oh and that they will refuse the perfectly legitimate questioning of their intent and their identity.


60 posted on 09/27/2010 1:47:28 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

>Even if everything you say is correct, it doesn’t matter what he was trying to do.
>All that matters is how his actions would have been interpreted by a reasonable officer taking into account their training and experience.
>*Training and experience tells you to fire the moment that someone goes for a gun.*

Wow. According to that sort of a mentality it is absolutely moral and correct for the police to issue orders to disarm [or even present their weapon] and then execute them for complying! What do you suppose the majority of people would do if presented with multiple firearms leveled at them demanding that they surrender their weapon via a command to “Drop it!”?

Just shoot everyone who would comply because “anyone stupid enough to touch a weapon when the police are geared-to-go deserves to get shot”?


61 posted on 09/27/2010 1:55:10 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: machogirl
Read this article for a more complete account of Scott and his drug taking. The article states a report was filed with the state claiming Scott received multiple prescriptions from multiple doctors, a felony in Nevada.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/testimony-focuses-erik-scotts-use-prescription-dru/

62 posted on 09/27/2010 1:58:51 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Half of all Americans are above average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

>>thank you for the info. was he legally taking the medicine?
>
>Three of his doctors testified at the inquest, so he did have prescriptions. However, a prescription can’t be refilled until it is almost expired. In Florida, I know morphine is prescribed short term, like five days. So to account for the levels in Scott’s blood, he either overdosed the prescriptions he had, or he was doctor shopping to get multiple prescriptions or obtaining his drugs from an illegal source.

OR his body didn’t adequately breakdown the morphine like the average person. I read somewhere, I believe on his father’s blog, that a doctor had recently talked to Erik about the possibility that the morphine wasn’t as effective as it should have been because of a lack of a certain enzyme that helped process it. [I don’t have the ref right now... If I stumble upon it and remember this post I’ll pop a link.]


63 posted on 09/27/2010 2:01:28 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

>Read this article for a more complete account of Scott and his drug taking. The article states a report was filed with the state claiming Scott received multiple prescriptions from multiple doctors, a felony in Nevada.

It may be a felony in NV, but if he was doing anything with the VA and their VA is anything like my local one, then it’d be absolutely normal to have multiple doctors as the doctors are ‘assigned’ on specialty; that is to say, you’d see a different doctor for allergies than you would for psychological problems than you would for physical therapy than you would for a general check-up... and even then they might referral out to civilian specialists.


64 posted on 09/27/2010 2:07:22 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Here’s the link to his dad’s blog you were referencing earlier where the notion that Erik’s body couldn’t metabolize hydrocodone is floated. It’s about mid-way down.

There’s no testimony from VA doctors, or that Erik was being treated at the VA. There is testimony, however, that Erik contacted multiple physicians seeking prescriptions for morphene. His father is the source of rumors about steriod use, which evidence has either not been introduced at the inquest, or has not been reported.


65 posted on 09/27/2010 2:40:35 PM PDT by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You can never do more, you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Thanks for the link. It doesn’t show that Scott was seeking multiple prescriptions from multiple doctors. It merely states that the accusation had been made. The doctor currently treating him didn’t seem to see any painkillers he wasn’t supposed to have in the report. However, it does look like Scott was more interested in continuing his painkillers than getting treatment for possible dependency.

The guy was pretty athletic in spite of his injuries. He wasn’t some dude just getting high...


66 posted on 09/27/2010 2:40:41 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Read the earlier threads,what the actual witnesses, not the ones that the kangaroo inquest called said happened. Sooner or later, they are going to kill a Hispanic or Black person, then then DOJ will go after them. It is a shame that it will have to come to that. They not only murdered his body, but, they assassinated his character. I know that they will get away with doing it,but, it still don't make it right.
67 posted on 09/27/2010 2:43:14 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The doctor currently treating him didn’t seem to see any painkillers he wasn’t supposed to have in the report.

But probably not at the high levels in his blood, and I doubt any doctor prescribed him Xanax who also knew he was on very high levels of morphine.

The guy was pretty athletic in spite of his injuries.

His last doctor said Scott had trouble staying upright and appeared groggy, which would coincide with the testimony of Scott's appearance at Costco. The same doctor also drafted a letter cutting him off as a patient, though it was never sent. Scott also suggested doctors make up fake reasons to prescribe him painkillers according to testimony.

68 posted on 09/27/2010 2:53:46 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Half of all Americans are above average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

My best friend growing up is now a state trooper. He was a terrible driver in high school who totaled two cars by the time he was 18. He never shot guns (like we did), except a couple of times a year when we would go pheasant hunting.

I find it extremely ironic that he now has the authority to pull people over and cite them for dangerous driving.

He had never fired a handgun before testing for the force. While he hasn’t failed yet, he admits that the only time he shoots is once a year when he has to qualify with his weapon. He has to get a 240 out of 300 points to pass (80 percent); he mentioned that his highest score was 244. He’s nervous to take the test, because he’s always so close to the cut off.

I bet most people can score 240/300 without practice. As you mentioned, most CCW holders would have much higher scores.


69 posted on 09/27/2010 3:16:01 PM PDT by Dexter Morgan (Everyone hides who they are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: absalom01

>Here’s the link to his dad’s blog you were referencing earlier where the notion that Erik’s body couldn’t metabolize hydrocodone is floated. It’s about mid-way down.

Ah, thanks.

>There’s no testimony from VA doctors, or that Erik was being treated at the VA. There is testimony, however, that Erik contacted multiple physicians seeking prescriptions for morphene.

That’s interesting, though somewhat inconclusive... by all local accounts I’ve heard the system for dealing with police misconduct in LV is seriously broken.

>His father is the source of rumors about steriod use, which evidence has either not been introduced at the inquest, or has not been reported.

Steroids are an interesting subject; when people use the term they usually think of the anabolic steroids used in “bulking up” but there are other steroids such as ones to help premature babies breathe,


70 posted on 09/27/2010 3:16:01 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: sport

So you’re making a hearsay accusation as if it is fact. Uh huh, right in character for these threads.


71 posted on 09/27/2010 3:21:44 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it's nye impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

doh!

http://erikbscottmemorialblog.blogspot.com/

I’m puzzled as to the relvance of the ‘roids, myself, and only mentioned it because the father has raised the issue, if only to preempt it.


72 posted on 09/27/2010 3:31:55 PM PDT by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You can never do more, you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: TheThirdRuffian

Okay. Kind of like a encounter with a game warden.


73 posted on 09/27/2010 3:32:19 PM PDT by Deaf Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

He also described Scott as a high level athlete, and that when he last saw him, he was groggy but not out of control. He also had changed his mind about dropping him as a patient.


74 posted on 09/27/2010 4:20:21 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

thanks for the link.


75 posted on 09/27/2010 11:18:45 PM PDT by machogirl (First they came for my tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: machogirl; Mr Rogers
Testimony yesterday indicates that Scott obtained the prescriptions illegally from a doctor who employed his girlfriend.

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/25187560/detail.html

76 posted on 09/28/2010 9:39:23 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Half of all Americans are above average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; machogirl

The testimony clip in the article is contradictory - that the doctor was giving prescriptions without monitoring, and that the doctor had nothing to do with Scott. It would be interesting to know how Scott met his girlfriend...did he meet her & use her, or did he meet her at the doctor’s office?

All of which is irrelevant to the questions, “Did the police act responsibly in shooting Scott 7 times? Did they feel threatened based on the facts or what they expected (I obviously believe #2)? Did they shoot him on the ground? And were there better ways to handle the situation?”


77 posted on 09/28/2010 9:50:43 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
If you have three shooters, seven rounds from three simultaneous shooters is not excessive, yet the number of rounds is touted as evidence of 'overkill'. Mosher fired twice, according to the evidence. I still haven't found a single piece of data from the court supporting the accusation that he was shot after hitting the pavement.

There is little doubt that the police reacted to what they had been led to believe they would be facing with 'an armed crazy'. But to crucify the police for this is over the top agenda mongering.

BTW, I used to have a 1991 and it had a short cocked hammer position which kept the hammer off of the firing pin but would not everytime fire if the trigger was pulled and the hammer dropped from the short cocked position. A newer hammer spring would have made it fire reliably from the short cocked position and the trigger wouldn't need heavy finger pressure.

78 posted on 09/28/2010 10:40:18 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it's nye impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

That 1991 should read 1911, an armory build which had been nickeled, with Pachmyer wrap-around finger position grip.


79 posted on 09/28/2010 10:41:43 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it's nye impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The testimony clip in the article is contradictory - that the doctor was giving prescriptions without monitoring, and that the doctor had nothing to do with Scott.

The doctor was illegally writing prescriptions on demand to Scott without actually seeing him as a patient as a law abiding doctor would, therefore the article isn't being contradictory.

All of which is irrelevant to the questions, “Did the police act responsibly in shooting Scott 7 times? Did they feel threatened based on the facts or what they expected (I obviously believe #2)? Did they shoot him on the ground? And were there better ways to handle the situation?”

Relevancy should be determined by the laws of Nevada, not your lawyerly questions. Scott's illegal drug use should be considered along with the testimony about Scott's behavior. Scott was carrying his weapon illegally under the influence of drugs. He held up his hand to a Costco employee's head as if it was a gun. He told another employee he was a Green Beret when he never was. Another employee was told by Scott that he was "messed up". Scott immediately went for his gun when he was first contacted by the police. He didn't follow any commands. Two witnesses yesterday said when Mosher was giving commands, Scott was looking back and forth as if he was looking for a way out. From the information Mosher received from his dispatcher, he believed Scott was armed, under the influence of drugs, and threatening. Scott disobeyed any training he ever received as a soldier or as a CCW holder on how to disarm.

The only way the cops could have handled the situation better was with hindsight. The best outcome would have been if Scott was in a detox center or a hospital where he belonged.

80 posted on 09/28/2010 10:43:21 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Half of all Americans are above average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

The cops are lying. I hope they’re all hunted down like dogs.


81 posted on 09/28/2010 10:45:58 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; MHGinTN

Lots of misinformation in your post.

1 - The doctor was both supposedly giving prescriptions, and also refusing to see Scott and had nothing to do with him (”Dr. Pearce said he does not know Erik Scott, has never treated him professionally, or was a patient of his.”).

2 - So, based on the laws of Nevada, what ARE the pertinent questions for the inquest to answer?

3 - “Scott was carrying his weapon illegally under the influence of drugs.” Not if he had valid prescriptions. If he did not, then he still was not committing a crime punishable by death.

4 - “He held up his hand to a Costco employee’s head as if it was a gun.” False. He said he would protect the Costco employee if he was threatened. You make it sound like he was threatening the man he said he would protect...

5 - “Scott immediately went for his gun when he was first contacted by the police.” No. He didn’t grab for his gun. He turned, and removed the holster with his gun in it. That is undeniable, and that is not the same as ‘going for his gun’.

6 - “He didn’t follow any commands. Two witnesses yesterday said when Mosher was giving commands, Scott was looking back and forth as if he was looking for a way out.” He seems to have received more than one command. Looking around is not consistent with trying to escape, but with disbelief that the incident is happening to him. I am certain that a person leaving Costco knew where the exit was without needing further looking.

7 - “From the information Mosher received from his dispatcher, he believed Scott was armed, under the influence of drugs, and threatening.” Agreed. Yet in reality, Scott didn’t try to attack anyone. That is a known fact. So the cop was obviously prepped to see something that wasn’t there, which would help explain why he didn’t know the gun was holstered until after he killed the man offering it.

Remember, the physical evidence proves Scott had no intent to shoot. It was impossible for him to do so.

8 - “Scott disobeyed any training he ever received as a soldier or as a CCW holder on how to disarm.” False. I was told the same sort of thing, with it being optional on handing the gun over or letting the cop remove it. Nor is a soldier trained on how to disarm. I spent 25 years in, and was trained to shoot, not to give up.

9 - “The only way the cops could have handled the situation better was with hindsight.” Nope. The cops needed to be less trigger happy and less confrontational. It is amazing how much more receptive someone is to “Sir, can I have a word with you for a minute?” than to “Drop it! On your knees!”

10 - “The best outcome would have been if Scott was in a detox center or a hospital where he belonged.” We largely agree on this,. The evidence shows Scott had become addicted to painkillers.


MHGinTN wrote, “I still haven’t found a single piece of data from the court supporting the accusation that he was shot after hitting the pavement.”

He was hit in the buttocks and the bullet travel up into the body. Unless Las Vegas cops are as short as they are fat, they couldn’t shoot him in the butt with an upward trajectory. Also, when I first read the news accounts in July, it sounded like the cops had Scott surrounded. I haven’t seen the inquest, but it sounds like they were not circled around him, but largely from the same direction. Unless one of the cops was directly behind him (which would mean the cops were shooting at each other as well as at the suspect), shooting Scott in the back 5 times seems at least odd.

Also, I believe one wound entered thru the armpit without going thru the arm.

“But to crucify the police for this is over the top agenda mongering.”

I’m not. I think Mosher (3 shootings in 5 years, 2 dead) needs to find other work. I don’t believe he committed a crime, but I do think he lacks SA and judgment. I also think the cops used terrible tactics.

1911s are single action guns. With the hammer down, at an absolute minimum, it would have to be pulled back to fire. And everything I’ve read says you don’t carry a 1911 with a hammer down on a round. Without seeing the inside of the gun (which the cops have and haven’t testified to, or at least it didn’t make the news reports), we KNOW he would have to pull the hammer back. If he carried it as recommended, he would have needed to remove the gun and rack the slide. Neither is something you do when someone already has a gun pointed at your chest, and there has been no testimony that Scott tried to remove the gun or rack the slide.

And when the cop testified that it was easy to shoot a gun like that (Kimber) from the holster, he was either lying or stupid. It isn’t easy to fire my revolver from that holster like that, and it is double action.


82 posted on 09/28/2010 11:42:18 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I have several problems with your post. Here are but two:

"Remember, the physical evidence proves Scott had no intent to shoot. It was impossible for him to do so." That is absolutely untrue! I have personally fired a Kimber carry by pulling the hammer back without pulling the trigger. By releasing the hammer before reaching the full cocked position, the hammer will strike the firing pin and send a round while also flipping the holster off of the weapon to release it from the holster.

And this little piece of deception you tried:
"He was hit in the buttocks and the bullet travel up into the body. Unless Las Vegas cops are as short as they are fat..." Um, since two of the police were behind him and Mosher in front, it would be natural to drop to the ground to fire at the suspect and remove yourself from the line of fire of the officer in front.

Your deceptions are clearly fabricated to serve an agenda. Your disgusting deceits expose your pretend perspective of objectivity. At this point, I wouldn't trust a single thing you assert. You are quite clever mixing your deceits in with some facts. You ain't what you claim to be, troll.

83 posted on 09/28/2010 11:52:01 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it's nye impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Well, I have problems with your rebuttal.

1 - I’ve never heard of anyone who carried a 1911 with the hammer down on a live round, and then planned on shooting it by fanning the hammer. Everything I’ve read said there are two ways to safely carry a 1911 - cocked and locked, or hammer down on an empty chamber.

I’ll post your technique on some gun forums to see if anyone else has heard or practiced that method. And if Scott was planning on it, then the testimony should have mentioned that there was a round int he chamber and that Scott might have been hoping to fan the hammer.

But frankly, I think your technique sounds like a real reach in an attempt to clear the name of a cop who admits he didn’t know the holster was wrapped around the gun. And the idea that someone pulls the holster with the gun so he can fan the hammer and blow off the holster while shooting it is nothing less than bizarre!

Also, before drawing (according to the testimony of Mosher), Scott announced he had a gun. Is that consistent with someone trying to outdraw and shoot the cops - to warn them?

2 - As I pointed out in my post, it seems the testimony does not support Scott being totally surrounded. If he was, it indicates gross stupidity on the part of the cops. And no one is claiming the other two cops dropped to the ground before firing. To pretend they did is to LIE.

I don’t know what your agenda is, but the truth isn’t part of it.

Lots more testimony (both sides, often conflicting the way normal witness testimony does) here:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/27/erik-scott-day5/


84 posted on 09/28/2010 12:09:18 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The doctor was both supposedly giving prescriptions, and also refusing to see Scott and had nothing to do with him (”Dr. Pearce said he does not know Erik Scott, has never treated him professionally, or was a patient of his.”).

Perhaps Scott's girlfriend stole a prescription pad and Scott was writing prescriptions to himself. In any case, Scott was obtaining the drugs illegally using Dr. Pearce's prescriptions. There is no contradiction.

“Scott was carrying his weapon illegally under the influence of drugs.” Not if he had valid prescriptions. If he did not, then he still was not committing a crime punishable by death.

He had a level of drugs causing him to stumble, write incoherently, have glossy eyes, and tell someone he was messed up, therefore he was carrying a gun illegally. Had he followed the commands of the police, not immediately reached for the gun, or pointed it at the officer, he would be alive and facing justice for illegally carrying a firearm and obtaining prescriptions illegally.

“He held up his hand to a Costco employee’s head as if it was a gun.” False. He said he would protect the Costco employee if he was threatened. You make it sound like he was threatening the man he said he would protect...

He was having a confrontation with the employee about whether he could have the gun in the store. In a confrontation, a rational, friendly person does not act like he is pointing a gun at the person he says he is going to protect, especially when he is known to be armed.

“Scott immediately went for his gun when he was first contacted by the police.” No. He didn’t grab for his gun. He turned, and removed the holster with his gun in it. That is undeniable, and that is not the same as ‘going for his gun’.

Mosher testified on the first day that he touched Scott's left elbow, and Scott immediately reached for his gun. This was before Scott was facing the officer and pulled out the holster and the gun.

Agreed. Yet in reality, Scott didn’t try to attack anyone. That is a known fact. So the cop was obviously prepped to see something that wasn’t there, which would help explain why he didn’t know the gun was holstered until after he killed the man offering it. Remember, the physical evidence proves Scott had no intent to shoot. It was impossible for him to do so.

More 20/20 hindsight.

“Scott disobeyed any training he ever received as a soldier or as a CCW holder on how to disarm.” False. I was told the same sort of thing, with it being optional on handing the gun over or letting the cop remove it. Nor is a soldier trained on how to disarm. I spent 25 years in, and was trained to shoot, not to give up.

Most people I know who have received firearms training are told not to point a gun at anything unless they intend to shoot it, even if they think it is unloaded. Reaching for anything with three cops pointing their guns at you, telling you to show your hands and drop to the ground isn't in any instruction manual either. Is that what you would have done?

85 posted on 09/28/2010 12:51:26 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Half of all Americans are above average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

“In any case, Scott was obtaining the drugs illegally using Dr. Pearce’s prescriptions.”

That is your conjecture. But if Dr Pearce wrote the prescriptions, then it was not illegal for Scott to use them. It is also possible that Scott WAS illegally writing his own prescriptions, but that has not been shown.

“He had a level of drugs causing him to stumble, write incoherently, have glossy eyes, and tell someone he was messed up, therefore he was carrying a gun illegally.”

He had recently been in a car accident. If he wrote incoherently, they should have introduced the paper - even if the clerk initially threw it away, it ought to have been available for viewing. And the girlfriend may or may not provide differing testimony once it gets to a court. Remember, in the inquest, only the prosecution (whose job is to convict Scott) has a role.

“In a confrontation, a rational, friendly person does not act like he is pointing a gun at the person he says he is going to protect...”

He specifically told the employee that if someone tried to hurt him, he (Scott) would protect him. That is an odd sort of threat - ‘If anyone comes after you, I’ll stop him!’ Those are not the exact words, nor do I feel like digging them up.

“Mosher testified on the first day that he touched Scott’s left elbow, and Scott immediately reached for his gun. This was before Scott was facing the officer and pulled out the holster and the gun.”

Many CCW folks are a bit paranoid about losing their guns. That is why many unconsciously touch them, particularly after someone touched them first. Since he didn’t pull the gun then, he obviously didn’t grab it then.

When he did, it was the gun & holster that he removed as a unit. Good idea? No. But then, Scott KNEW the gun wasn’t a threat unless he racked the slide (or at a minimum, pulled the hammer back to fire). Perceptions work both ways. The police were expecting a dangerous threat. Scott knew he was not. Both worked from their own perceptions without thinking about the other person’s perceptions, which is why I believe this is a tragedy, not a crime.

The cops did not go to Costco to kill someone. Neither did Scott. Where we differ is that I don’t believe the cops were flawless. Of course, neither was Scott. Both, I believe, acted based on what they knew or thought they knew, rather than the facts that were happening - and that created a killing where none needed to occur.

“Reaching for anything with three cops pointing their guns at you, telling you to show your hands and drop to the ground isn’t in any instruction manual either. Is that what you would have done?”

Honestly, I don’t know. Before July, I would have found the scenario so unbelievable that I wouldn’t have thought about it. The two instructors of my CCW class (which I took a few weeks prior to Scott’s death) made it clear they considered being stopped by cops while carrying a scary thing for a non-cop. Both, when stopped, didn’t hesitate to tell the cop that they were former cops, which usually helped calm things down. Still, one had a cop stuff a .40 Glock in his face while shouting for him both to hand it over and not move. The cop’s finger was on the trigger, and a Glock trigger fires with 5 lbs of pressure - way to sensitive, IMHO, for use as a cop’s gun. My revolver has 3.5 lbs of trigger pull in single action, and I’ve fired it accidentally in SA (though downrange, which is why habit patterns count!)

They basically said that getting stopped by a cop while carrying might go very smooth, or might be very dangerous - and that it depended as much on the cop as the person stopped.

If I carry, it is usually with the gun entirely inside my front pocket, with the shirt covering it. If I felt like I was in a higher threat - broken down at night in a bad part of town - I’d pull it part way out, so just the grip showed. And tuck my shirt in, so it would then be open carry with a very fast draw.

AS far as I’m concerned (and IAW Arizona law), as soon as a Costco employee said no carry, Scott needed to leave ASAP. Period. When he didn’t, he started the problem. He definitely was a big part of what happened, and not in a good way.

But suppose I had been exiting Costco next to Scott, with no idea and suddenly a cop was saying something about handing over a gun, or stopping, or dropping, or most anything else...what would I do?

I think now I would raise my hands and force anyone who shot me to do so with every witness against them. If I was shot, I’d want the bullet hole to enter my armpit - as one of Scott’s did, BTW. But what would I have done last July, before I read about all this? I just don’t know...


86 posted on 09/28/2010 2:32:39 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I didn't say 'fan the hammer' you lying sack of deceitful agenda. I said it is easy to fire the first round by pulling the hammer back and releasing it before it mkaes the cocked position. That little piece of deceit you tried to float as your strawman shows you're a lying poseur with an agenda. Get stuffed, obamanoid.

Only the police person who made the upward shot needed to be 'dropped to the ground. You scum come on FR and play these word games all the time. You just get caught when someone challenges you because all you know how to do is deceive readers with your fabrications. Again, with more intensity, get stuffed you lying sack of acorns.

In typical lying democrat posing as a consewrvative style, tou accuse others of what you are trying to do. You're a lying deceitful poseur at FR who has been playing these word games on many threads (the birther threads come to mind first), all the time pretending to be something you're not.

As to floating something on a gun thread, yeah, somehow I trust you'll frame your deceit ins uch a way that unsuspecting rersponders will substantiate your deceits without realizing it. but just pick up a Kimber Carry, shove it into a belt-clip holster with a round chambered, then pull the hammer back and let it go before reaching 'cocked'. Then pick the holster up off the ground and take the mag out of the weapon in your hand, unless you want to fire the rest of the rounds ... and jack the slide back, fool, cause there's a round chambered and the hammer is cocked after you do the trick. Your lack of knowledge reveals a lot about you, liar.

87 posted on 09/28/2010 3:56:17 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it's nye impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Moonman62

Please continue your rants. Do you get your drugs from the same doctor that Scott used?

And do you realize how breathtakingly stupid you make your side out to be?

I may not agree with Moonman62, but Moonman62 makes rational arguments. Meanwhile, this 12 year poster on FR continues on in deep cover, trolling for Obama by saying the Las Vegas Police Department has some trigger happy cops.

“but just pick up a Kimber Carry, shove it into a belt-clip holster with a round chambered, then pull the hammer back and let it go before reaching ‘cocked’.”

No thanks. If I carry a Kimber, it will either be cocked and locked, or with an empty chamber - which is almost certainly the way Scott was carrying it. Even Scott didn’t take enough drugs to try to use a Kimber the way you advocate.


88 posted on 09/28/2010 4:12:30 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Bookmark


89 posted on 09/28/2010 4:14:25 PM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Why reach? The police said get down....that is all.

That's not what the article stated:

"Get on the ground!" "Drop your weapon!" and "Keep your hands up!"

90 posted on 09/28/2010 4:26:12 PM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Scott was carrying his weapon illegally under the influence of drugs. He held up his hand to a Costco employee's head as if it was a gun. He told another employee he was a Green Beret when he never was. Another employee was told by Scott that he was "messed up". Scott immediately went for his gun when he was first contacted by the police. He didn't follow any commands. Two witnesses yesterday said when Mosher was giving commands, Scott was looking back and forth as if he was looking for a way out. From the information Mosher received from his dispatcher, he believed Scott was armed, under the influence of drugs, and threatening.

What does all this have to do with the *actual* shooting event by law enforcement?

The article clearly stated the victim was given multiple, different commands, never pulled the weapon of it's holster and then he was subsequently shot to death.

91 posted on 09/28/2010 4:37:02 PM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Again with your deceitful strawman approach! I didn't say I advocate doing that, it is just proof that your assertion that it was impossible for him to fire the Kimber because it was still holstered was in fact just your lying to readers. And since you nor I know whether there was a raound chambered in Scott's weapon, the rest of your spittle is just more agenda hyperbole.

The problem with you twisters is, if someone makes any concession you then pretend they agree completely with you and serve your agenda. The LV police screwed up and a man is dead who should still be alive. But their screw up is not the purposeful murder of a drugged man that you try to pursuade readers. There were several problems with the way this incident was handled. But your approach to inveigle your 'don't trust cops' agenda is getting too obvious, prick. [And that 'prick' is a little nettle, nothing more, a minor irritant to be dealt with as one sees fit.] As to your posing as some expert on fire arms, well, you're not what you pretend to be on FR even with your research to support your faux expertise.

92 posted on 09/28/2010 4:37:35 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it's nye impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Keep posting. You make my case look good...


93 posted on 09/28/2010 5:00:30 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Thread about what condition to carry a 1911 in:

http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=38215

Also see:

http://forum.m1911.org/archive/index.php/t-82682.html


94 posted on 09/28/2010 5:17:43 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
What does all this have to do with the *actual* shooting event by law enforcement?

The article clearly stated the victim was given multiple, different commands,

This is important: the article at the head of this thread is a post from August 30 on William Scott's blog, written either by William Scott, Erik's father, or Ross Goodman, the family's lawyer. In either case, it's understandable that the story it tells leads one to beleive that the LVMPD were the bad guys in this tragedy.

But since this was posted, we've had six days of testimony at the coroner's inquest, where we learned that things weren't quite as one-sided as Russ Goodman has been saying. He has long been hammering on the exact point you raise, doubtless because he's a pretty decent trial lawyer, and realizes it's his best bet at getting 7 jurors at a civil trial to agree that LVMPD is at least 51% in the wrong.

The problem is that the allegations raised in this article have been largely contradicted by the testimony and evidence at the inquest. We've heard from multiple witnesses that only officer Mosher was giving instructions to Erik Scott, which is corroborated by the 911 tape: we can hear Mosher, but no other officers.

So Goodman's down to this: Mosher's command "drop it" was understood by Scott to reach behind his back, grab his pistol, and point it at Mosher. To beleive this, you also have to assume that when Mosher said "drop it", he could see Scott's hands, and that they were empty. If Mosher uttered those words when he could not see Scott's hand hand because he was reaching behind his back, or if he appeared to be holding an object, even that slight ambiguity vanishes.

The rest of the blog post has turned out to contain a series of factual errors and omissions as well. That's fine: who expects a grieving father to look at both sides of this? But we are not so burdened. An informed opinion requires that we look at all the facts, not just the version the family has decided they need to believe, and Ross Goodman needs to propogate.

95 posted on 09/28/2010 5:44:05 PM PDT by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You can never do more, you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

did that contribute to his reaction to the police? i don’t know.

from the info, he sounds troubled, but i don’t believe that this was a “good shoot”. IMHO


96 posted on 09/28/2010 6:22:17 PM PDT by machogirl (First they came for my tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: machogirl; Mr Rogers
According to the article below the jury ruled the shooting justified.

http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13233441

97 posted on 09/28/2010 6:41:36 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Half of all Americans are above average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Thanks for the link. I’m not surprised, but it will now go to a civil case. Both sides will be heard there. If I lived in Vegas (and I’m really glad I live in southern Arizona instead!), I’d want some changes to the inquest procedures.

In terms of criminal standards, I think I agree with it being ‘justified’. The standard is if the shooter is reasonable in believing his life is in danger, understanding that there is only a second to decide. And while the shooter was NOT in danger, he had sufficient cause for fear to justify it, IMHO.

That said, I think it may play out different when it goes to civil court. There the case includes ‘Could a reasonable person have handled it differently with different results?’, and the family will have a much stronger chance with that.


98 posted on 09/28/2010 7:43:32 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

the entire incident is one BIG SAD for everyone.


99 posted on 09/28/2010 10:47:19 PM PDT by machogirl (First they came for my tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

>>>8 - “Scott disobeyed any training he ever received as a soldier or as a CCW holder on how to disarm.”
>>False. I was told the same sort of thing, with it being optional on handing the gun over or letting the cop remove it.
>>Nor is a soldier trained on how to disarm. I spent 25 years in, and was trained to shoot, not to give up.

Indeed so; in fact the ‘request’/demand for a soldier to disarm can be grounds for “escalating the situation.”
{IE, chamber a round and reply, “Come and take it.”}


100 posted on 09/29/2010 11:04:08 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-102 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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