"The weapon's layin' right out in front of the store. And they also found another weapon on him when they transported him to the hospital."
(Pic takes you to the vid. Statement between 2:05-2:11)
Posted on 07/13/2010 3:47:06 AM PDT by marktwain
Edited on 07/13/2010 4:51:40 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
A witness said he'd broken open a package of sports drinks and was seeing how many could fit into a backpack. If true then they were the actions of a jerk but not a berserk person. But again, I haven't seen any account where anyone but the police described him as such.
You know, there are a lot of unkowns here. For example, witnesses say the victim was confronted outside the store. Why? Why did police zero in on him? Has anyone heard? Did the Costco employee point him out or did the police order him to halt for another reason? All the witnesses seem to start their accounts from when the police began yelling. It was a bad situation all around and a man is dead who shouldn't be. So regardless of why they were called to begin with, unless there is some indication that the victim acted improperly or dangerously to the police then the responsibility for the death lies with the police officer's themselves. And for the earlier poster to say that all the blame for the death and what will happen to the police officer's lives and careers is nonsense.
If you obey the posted speed limit and have your vehicle’s lights in good working order, your chances of getting pulled over for a traffic violation just got cut dramatically.
You do not get to choose whicj laws that you get to disobey just because you dislike the reason for the law and then bitch when you get busted for not following the law.
“And then there are motorists who are simply falsely accused by a dishonest cop who knows that the cost of fighting the ticket is higher than the cost of paying it and moving on.”
Yep, all cops do this. Then they sit at the PD and compare notes and laugh. At least in your head, that appears to be the case.
But...but...but... they wouldn't never deliberately "forget" to include information that didn't jive with their version of reality? Right? That would be... lying! I'm sure the upstanding fair-minding libertarians on this thread would never do that.
Wait, I get it... the Cops must have PAID OFF these two witnesses and made them say this things. And since internet libertines have the ability to sniff out such corruption wherever it exists, they safely disregarded this tainted testimony.
Yep, that's right IT'S A POLICE CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!! And the internet libertines have once again rescued the day. [/sarcasm]
The bystanders who saw it are almost unanimous in saying they did not think he was a threat. Quite the contrary, there are multiple witnesses who saw him peacefully exit.
Thank God for the Losertarians. I mean, how else would we know of conspiracies such as this, lol?
It’s hard to tell.
Some reports indicate some sort of conflict occurred between the Army vet and a Manager in Costco, leading to a phone call to cops, their arrival, then an apparently law abiding vet of good report being gunned down and tasered, without just cause, who also happened to have been carrying a concealed weapon with permit.
Other reports indicate the Costco had announced over their PA for shoppers to depart, the vet also departed and was stopped by LEOs upon departure and was killed in the process of their gaining control of him.
Some claim he never had a gun out pointing at anybody, some indicate he had a gun, holding it, perhaps in a holster, in the process of laying it down,...too many conflicting eyewitness reports and partial reporting.
IMHO, the eyewitness reports need to be clarified to explicitly understand their meaning. Did somebody actually see him holding a gun outside of it’s holster? How did he enter the crowd leaving the store? Why was the store being closed early? etc.
See my post #16.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/man-did-not-pull-gun-on-police-at-costco—lawyer-says-98279344.html
But the 72-year-old man, in addition to another witness reached Monday, said they did see the weapon and did see Scott reach for it.
I don't know, where did he get the information? He didn't attribute the description to the store employee did he? You don't suppose that the fact that several of his men blew an innocent man away may have caused his creative juices to flow and for that description to come out?
But...but...but... they wouldn't never deliberately "forget" to include information that didn't jive with their version of reality?
You sound like you're describing how the cops fill out their incident reports.
Even the police spokesman in RandallFlagg’s video link above doen’t say that the weapon every came out of its holster. He’s very careful in what he says, you may notice.
ANOTHER interesting item on that video:
That spokesman also stated that they found TWO weapons on the victim.
Stranger and stranger...
“How about just murder suspects that refused simple and clearly stated orders possibly putting my life in danger?”
Flying in the military over Iraq, I couldn’t just bomb some place because they might possibly put my life in danger. I had to wait until they shot at me or others.
If cops don’t want to be called civilians, then maybe they should accept the same risks that the military does...
On the vid, from 2:05-2:11.
If you obey the posted speed limit and have your vehicle’s lights in good working order, your chances of getting pulled over for a traffic violation just got cut dramatically.
Note the keyword there: chances. It's not about whether you are actually violating the traffic law or not, but how to reduce your chance of being accused - rightly or wrongly - of violating it. And watching your speed is indeed a good strategy of risk reduction.
The problem is a cop can basically find a reason to pull you over if he wants to just by following you down the road long enough. And if he doesn't see anything immediate, he can simply make one up. He can simply say you were "swerving" or "accelerating too quickly" or changed lanes "aggressively" and on go the flashers.
If he's a corrupt cop he may even rig a speeding ticket against you by toying with his radar gun's calibration, or taking a false ping off another car, or simply saying that he "matched" your vehicle speed with no way to independently verify if he's telling the truth.
Since cops are human they can and do lie - especially if there's monetary reward involved. Some cops are indeed more honest than others, but there are so many of them out there that it's a statistical certainty the average motorist will encounter a dishonest one at some point in his lifetime. And when that happens he will have money stolen from him.
Well the cops obviously weren’t there in the store to see it first hand. And they obviously came to the store after being called about something. It is a safe deduction from those facts that they came to the store after being told something was happening in the store by the Costco clerk who called 911. Ergo the clerk was the source of their description.
Also a Costco employee is to blame for hyping the situation when he/she called 911. The police came into Costco expecting a crazed gunman. There was no crazed gunman but the police acted as though they had one on their hands. It seems Scott was given contradictory commands. When he obeyed the order to give up his weapon he was shot. My bet it was one of the two rookies who shot him
Gross stupidity and incompetence. Three Stooges episode
Likewise, if a person has a gun in their waistband and makes the decision to draw and fire it, they automatically have the advantage over someone who must process that threat and respond. Thus, if officers wait until the gun starts to come up, it's too late.
If you reach for a gun, you are in the midst if initiating a deadly force encounter. We don't judge incidents with 20/20 hindsight. We judge them from that moment in time, from the perspective of a reasonable officer.
Thus, the only thing that we examine, is whether it was objectively reasonable to fire at someone who reached for a weapon (according to two separate eyewitnesses) after being told not to move.
Remember, the police in that situation do not get the benefit of knowing all the extra information that you get to examine after the fact. They know that they have a guy with a gun in front of them, and he reaches for the weapon. That's it. Make an objectively reasonable decision in less than 2 seconds.
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.