Posted on 09/25/2010 8:11:33 AM PDT by redreno
Don’t know. Doesn’t seem very credible does it?
I thought the same thing, but did a little research and 1800 mg is a very high level of morphine to have, but if you have built up tolerance you can function, not well, but you can.
Having that level of morphine in his system, that tells me there is a lot more background to this story then is making the news, like a serious pain management problem and addiction.
Either way, with that level of drugs in his system, I am not surprised he was confused or slow in following commands.
Of course that in no way exonerates the JBT's who gunned him down and finished him off with a couple of shots in the back as he lay dying
>> The fact that Erik Scott has a 1800 mg of Morphine in his system
You say that’s a fact.
This case stinks.
I am so sorry that this man died. However, I do believe there is a risk to your life if you take that much Xanax and morphine and decide to wear 2 guns when you go shopping. It is a POOR choice that could get you killed.
Doesn’t this man have any responsibility here?? Why are so many FReepers acting as though he was innocent of everything? True gun enthusiasts know that you don’t combine guns and heavy drug use. It isn’t wise.
When you are severely intoxicated, don’t go shopping. Don’t take your guns with you. AND FOR G-D’S SAKE DON’T DO BOTH.
Thank you for the link to his father’s blog. My heart goes out to him.
I still think that when you are on painkillers, you should stay home. And for sure you should not be carrying weapons. I don’t think Erik did anything wrong inside the store to deserve what happened to him, but the combination of little bits of his behavior (showing some inebriation) AND carrying a weapon obviously freaked out the cops.
Whether they shot him wrongfully, and the case might be made, he’s dead. And I believe he lost his life because HIS CHOICES made the cops iffy or confused. It is OUR RESPONSIBILITY as free humans to choose our public behaviors carefully, or we might enter into suspicion of being dangerous. Combining intoxication with weapons is a poor choice.
I think that is something to consider.
But is it likely?
My question is why did she take Mr. Scott to COSTCO when he was under so much medication? Was he always this way? (meaning, under the medication on a constant basis)
Also many folks are on therapeutic pain medication and are in complete control of their actions. I don't think that is a valid reason to give up the right of self defense.
how about if youve been on it even longer, can that 'not well' get better with time ???
*if* he indeed but that much into his own system, and he was that obviously intoxicated, why didnt the cop simply take him down instead of tappin his shoulder, giving him opportunity to 'reach' ???
for all the witnesses testifying in lockstep that he was visibly whacked, it would seem an easy takedown by three trained cops at arm length...
scott either had NO idea he was a target of the evac, or he wasnt aware that three cops were that close to him, to actually reach out to touch him...either way, the suicide by cop scenario loses cred imo...
either/or though, the *professionals* shot him down and finnished him off while prone...all for what amounts to inadvertently uncovering his *liscened* weapon...
This is always a big issue on Freeper Threads, so I might as well be clear about my position.
The history of the LVPD shows that their is likely corruption rampant throughout, including the Chief of Police, the Prosecutors, and the Attorney General.
Police in LAS VEGAS have to deal with some pretty wild and weird citizens. Many of them are tanked on booze or drugs. I can see how they would develop a shoot first, ask questions later attitude.
I don't think all the LVPD are like that, nor are all LE across the nation.
But some are like that. Is the main Officer in the shooting like this?
I don't know. I do think that this was very poorly planned and not at all controlled, and that the officer in question was premature in deciding to shoot.
What I cannot understand is shooting him after he is down and already has six bullets in him. I say that is the reason NO ONE will be allowed to see the video evidence. The autopsy evidence points to this being true.
TO summarize, everyone here was at fault. The cops, the Costco employee, Mr. Scott, and his girlfriend.
What is important is who could have done the right thing and kept the killing from happening. It's like in an auto accident, the cops try to determine who had the LAST CHANCE to avoid the accident, but didn't.
I think this particular officer finds it a little to easy to shoot someone. But then, I am not him, I wasn't there.
Everyone seems explainable, even if the officer were to admit he reacted hastily.
But it's that seventh bullet that bothers me.
Which one?
Seven times?
Do you know what drugs he had in his system, and why?
Because most of the readers of this thread have already seen it.
One to kill him, six more for blood lust and laughs.
Seems like the Cops should have allowed for him being slow to react , since they had been told he might be on drugs. I guess it depends on what drugs they thought he was on.
“Mosher could have justifiably shot him at the point that he reached for his gun.”
I disagree. When I was being prepped for a tour in Afghanistan with the Army (I was USAF), they talked about this. Darn near every Afghan has a gun. Sometimes they use them stupid, and sometimes they use them hostile, and sometimes they do both at the same time.
But just because someone reaches for a gun, you cannot shoot them. Not in Afghanistan, which is a war zone - how much more so at Costco in Nevada!
I’ve pointed out before, and still assert that a man reaches for a gun HOLSTER differently than he does to draw a gun on an armed opponent. The latter is done as quickly as possible. There are people who can draw and fire in under 0.5 sec. I’m not one. But that is the sort of speed you had better show to draw a weapon against someone who is covering you. If Mosher had time to give commands, Scott wasn’t trying to kill him.
Nor do his actions immediately prior agree with hostile intent. If he was trying to kill the cop, he would have been moving much faster.
Do I expect a cop to notice these things? Yes. If we hold our guys in Afghanistan responsible, then we sure can hold a cop in a Nevada Costco responsible!
Not everyone has the SA and skills to be a good cop. Not all cop shootings are good shootings. No, Mosher did not commit first degree murder. Manslaughter? Maybe, maybe not. Without any tape evidence, I suspect a criminal conviction is impossible.
But did he behave as a responsible cop? Does he have any business being returned to duty? If Arizona hired him, would I want him stopping me for speeding when I have a revolver in my waistband - with a holster very much like Mr Scott’s?
Hell no! I want to live.
I gave this example on another thread. The guy who taught my CCW class was in a grocery store after midnight. He saw a guy approach the cash register, then lift his shirt and pull a Colt 45 out of his waist. No holster, just gun. He ALMOST shot the guy, but something connected that the guy didn’t seem to be intending to shoot. As he covered the guy with his gun (unseen), the guy stuck the 45 back in his pants and retrieved his wallet. He was trying to pay when the instructor tackled him.
The guy was high as a kite. He didn’t know what he was doing. Scott knew, and he wasn’t pulling a gun to kill, but a holster to disarm. A good cop would catch that. If someone doesn’t notice the difference, then I don’t want him working as a cop where I live.
Yea, I knew it was a wasted effort. Good luck.
Thank you for providing that information.
When I first heard about this, I was told it was 7 minutes from the time cops arrived until they shot him. Then, I listened to the audio tape and in the comments it was reported that the police were there for 30 minutes.
It may be that the time from the reception of the 911 call until the shot were fired was 30 minutes.
Unless I can find different, I stand corrected.
The fact still remains that the Cops on site knew that everyone was being evacuated from the store, including Mr. Scott, and then testified that they weren’t ready when he came out.
The cops had agreed to have the customers evacuated and not to ‘alert’ Mr. Scott. How could they not ‘know’ he was coming ?
Why couldn’t they have just asked him calmly to lie down and wait until their superiors arrived, instead of pointing guns at him and yelling conflicting instructions?
I think everyone involved is to blame.
I would like to know why the girlfriend let him/took him to COSTCO when he had trouble keeping his balance.
I think the COP leading this incident overreacted.
All these things are understandable. The last bullet, fired while he was laying on the ground, is not.
In this situation, I'm sure the cops knowing he was maybe on drugs and acting strangely just assumed he was possibly unstable and either didn't care to go the extra distance not kill him or are simply so callous from dealing with doped up ghetto dirt bags everyday they thought they were doing the city of Vegas a flavor.
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.