TexasCHLforum.com

davidtx wrote:

baldeagle wrote:The jury ruled justified.

I'm shocked. I wonder what the next step will be.

Federal civil rights lawsuit.

There pretty much is nowhere else to go.

- Jim

This is what I expected the outcome to be, yet I am somewhat grieved, nonetheless.

baldeagle wrote:The jury ruled justified.

Not surprised at all. I'm sure the Scott family expected no less. I would assume it's not over by any means as far as they are concerned. Having done many failure analysis with myriad investigation techniques. Fault Tree, RCA, Bobby Jones, I boil this down to Costco Employee/s. None of the outcome would have occurred but for the call and information and misinformation they gave during the 911 call. It's been stated here most catastrophes are a chain of small events that become the chain to tragedy. That's true but there is always one thing most of the time that acts as the joining link or catalyst. Without it events cannot fall like a domino. Erik broke no laws, yet was confronted with officers' guns drawn. He threatened no one yet he was confronted as if he was escaping a serious crime. He never would have moved toward his weapon but for the confrontation. He would not be dead if he'd been left alone to exit Cosco and it's reasonable to assume go to his vehicle and drive home. The behavior, procedures and (IMHO) errors made by the officers would never have happened. All those things can be investigated, explored, analyzed until the end of time and never find aggreement. One person put the chain of events into motion because Erik's CCW was accidently exposed, one person only and that is Shai Lierley . He probably considers himself a righteous guy doing the right thing, who knows, but as sure as I write this he put the noose on Erik's neck so someone could pull the lever. God Bless the Scott Family and Friends. Pray for them and the officers involved in this tragedy

RIP Erik. I pray for his family and friends.

I don't want to come across as confrontational, but concealed means concealed. I said that on page 1 of this 678-response thread.

The minimum-wage employee would not have had anything to call the cops about, and the cops would not have had a reason to be there, except for that.

Nothing can bring back Erik Scott, R.I.P. No amount of money can make his family whole. But we can remember that lesson, if we accept it as such.

- Jim

puma guy wrote:

baldeagle wrote:The jury ruled justified.

Not surprised at all. I'm sure the Scott family expected no less. I would assume it's not over by any means as far as they are concerned. Having done many failure analysis with myriad investigation techniques. Fault Tree, RCA, Bobby Jones, I boil this down to Costco Employee/s. None of the outcome would have occurred but for the call and information and misinformation they gave during the 911 call. It's been stated here most catastrophes are a chain of small events that become the chain to tragedy. That's true but there is always one thing most of the time that acts as the joining link or catalyst. Without it events cannot fall like a domino. Erik broke no laws, yet was confronted with officers' guns drawn. He threatened no one yet he was confronted as if he was escaping a serious crime. He never would have moved toward his weapon but for the confrontation. He would not be dead if he'd been left alone to exit Cosco and it's reasonable to assume go to his vehicle and drive home. The behavior, procedures and (IMHO) errors made by the officers would never have happened. All those things can be investigated, explored, analyzed until the end of time and never find aggreement. One person put the chain of events into motion because Erik's CCW was accidently exposed, one person only and that is Shai Lierley . He probably considers himself a righteous guy doing the right thing, who knows, but as sure as I write this he put the noose on Erik's neck so someone could pull the lever. God Bless the Scott Family and Friends. Pray for them and the officers involved in this tragedy

puma guy, your analysis is spot on.

seamusTX wrote:I don't want to come across as confrontational, but concealed means concealed. I said that on page 1 of this 678-response thread.

The minimum-wage employee would not have had anything to call the cops about, and the cops would not have had a reason to be there, except for that.

Nothing can bring back Erik Scott, R.I.P. No amount of money can make his family whole. But we can remember that lesson, if we accept it as such.

- Jim

Jim, you are right, of course, but that doesn't excuse Shai Lairly or the LVMPD for what they did as a result of Erik's poor choice of cover shirt.

Again, I don't want to seem confrontational, but no one person at Costco ordered the assassination of Erik Scott. The police officers pulled the triggers.

I'm sure Costco would rather not have the negative publicity and cleanup fees.

If I search hard enough, I can find messages on this forum about calling 911 on people who slipped concealment, and even "drawing down" on the plumber if his pants sagged.

- Jim

Didn't mean to start any controversy. I was merely trying to define what caused all of this to happen. Doing an analysis there are facts/events that can be corrected or changed and some that can't. Erik was at Costco. His shirt rode up. CCW was exposed. Someone saw it. He stated he was a CHL. Leave all that unchanged. Now look at the actions and events that followed. What started coupling the links to the train to disaster?

You and your wife are having some antimated discourse in a public place, one or both are agitated, one of you wants the car keys and the other has them. The wind blows and the tail of you lovely tropic print shirt rises momentarily to expose the butt of your CCW. Concerned citizen sees this activity and calls 911. No matter what occurs after that the call lit the match so to speak. That is my point.

There is another case in Wisconsin which has open carry and it led to arrests. Thankfully with no tragic end. The common denominator is the call to authorities. Maybe it's the correct thing to do. Maybe not. But consider this. Those opposed to CHL and OC can use a call to 911 to harrass at the least and at the worst cause a tragedy. I don't think the Costco employee was especially anti-gun. More like his ego was challenged. As was Erik's. But anti-gunners are not above doing any thing to disarm us and bury the 2nd Amendment. Concealed means Conceaeld sure - but say you're printing just long enough for someone to tell. What consequences should you suffer?

I don't want to be presumptuous, but since I observed the bulk of the inquest, perhaps my thoughts will help explain what took place. For the record, I watched the entire first day of testimony (I was on vacation that day, at home.) I watched the inquest on Thursday and Friday at work, but I was working, so I can't say I didn't miss something important. On Saturday, I watched the entire inquest. Yesterday and today I again watched from work but may well have missed things. I'm pretty good at multitasking, but.....

This is my reconstruction of the events that led up to and included Erik's death. Costco employees observed Erik's behavior inside the store and found it "odd". They investigated further by approaching him to ask him what he was doing. At some point in that interaction they observed that he was carrying a weapon in an IWB holster. Whatever Erik was wearing as a cover shirt was obviously a poor choice. One witness who saw Erik walking out of the store stated that he saw that Erik was carrying and thought, "That's really dumb." (Or words to that effect.) That witness was not aware of anything that went on inside the store and was following Erik out of the store. So clearly Erik made a poor choice of cover shirt. Lesson 1: ALWAYS check in a mirror or ask a friend to verify that your cover really is cover before going out in public. As Seamus observes, "Concealed means concealed."

I believe very little of what Costco employees testified to. They claimed that Erik claimed he was a Green Beret. I doubt seriously that he ever made that claim. Erik's reputation was one of scrupulous honesty. They claimed that he was "agitated" and "angry", yet not one customer who observed him in the store testified to that. Their descriptions were "irked" and "irritated". (I suspect more than one member of this forum might feel the same way when challenged on the right to carry.) They testified that he was loud and upsetting other customers. Yet customers who testified that they walked right past Erik never even noticed that there was the supposed argument that he was engaged in. One customer said he heard Erik say, "Well I can do that in Texas", a fact to which not one Costco employee testified. I suspect that in the civil trial, the Costco employees will be systematically ripped to shreds by the Scott's attorney. At some point, the Loss Prevention Officer, one Shai Lairly, decided to call 911. At that point, Erik's fate was sealed. Lairly continually escalated his narrative to the point that the police had no choice but to believe that they would be confronting an agitated, gun-carrying, drugged up and completely unpredictable subject. If Costco had any sense at all, they would dismiss Lairly today. It might help to limit their liability. My sense is that Costco will defend him to the hilt, because other Costco employees have backed up his testimony on the witness stand. Lesson 2: ALWAYS leave when your 2A rights are challenged. You can write angry letters, call your legislators or boycott the store, but you will still be alive.

As Lairly was escalating the danger to Erik in his call to 911, someone in LVMPD made the decision to ask Costco to evacuate the store. This was a stunningly bad decision. It meant that every employee and every customer would have to walk past armed officers prepared for a confrontation with a man who was carrying a gun, supposedly high on drugs or suffering from excited delirium and aggressive and combative and whose location they were only aware of as it was being updated. Yet Erik walked right past the officers, who had his complete description (red hair, 5'8", green t-shirt, blue jeans and white shoes), without one single officer even realizing that he was their suspect. It wasn't until a Costco employee (Lairly?) pointed Erik out to Officer Mosher that Mosher realized his suspect was less than three feet away from him, walking calmly out of the store. None of the other officers realized Erik was their suspect until after Mosher began loudly issuing orders to Erik to "Get down on the ground! Get down on the ground!" Erik walked past at least six officers without being identified either as their suspect or as a deadly threat! Lesson 3: NEVER assume that police officers perceive a situation the same way you do. They will likely not be aware of the same things that you are aware of and their training causes them to focus on different things than you or I do.

Instead, what officers should have done was enter the Costco store and surreptitiously observe the suspect to determine the veracity of Lairly's description. That would have also allowed them to accurately inform uniformed officers outside as to the suspect's behavior and location rather than depending upon Costco employees to update them. Had they simply done that (and they could have used plainclothes officers to do that), they would have quickly realized that Erik was not a threat. They then could have approached him and asked him quietly to leave the store, something no Costco employee ever asked him to do. In fact, multiple witnesses testified that they did not perceive Erik as a threat some even when they saw him present his weapon to the officers! (Some witnesses did perceive him as a threat after he removed his holstered gun, but not one customer or police officer did before he withdrew his holstered weapon.) Not one single customer inside the store perceived Erik as a threat nor did anyone who observed him as he walked out of the store. Neither did any Costco employee describe him as a threat with the exception of the store manager who told a bizarre story about Erik claiming to be a Green Beret and pointing his fingers to the manager's head to simulate a gun while stating that "if this happens to you, I can protect you" (I'm paraphrasing). Lesson 4: While you may think your actions are reasonable, others may not. NEVER assume that everyone sees things the same way you do.

I will write separately about the actual deadly force encounter.

puma guy wrote:Concealed means Conceaeld sure - but say you're printing just long enough for someone to tell. What consequences should you suffer?

Obviously not being shot to death, arrested, or prosecuted, in my book.

But Las Vegas is a place where a lot of bad stuff goes down. Probably they get what they pay for in terms of police salaries and hiring standards.

That's why "Hey, you!" means to check out and leave skid marks.

- Jim

This is the continuation of my previous analysis of the Erik Scott shooting based upon my observation of the inquest.

Once Erik walked out of Costco, calmly following the order to evacuate, his fate was sealed. Officer Mosher had already decided that this would be a deadly force encounter. The only way Erik could have survived was by either putting both hands high in the air and standing stock still or by hitting the ground instantly when ordered to do so. Even though no one had perceived him as a threat, Officer Mosher immediately responded to him as one, treating him the same as a felony suspect being confronted by officers. (At that point, Erik had committed no crime that officers would have been aware of. More on that later.) Even though Officer Mosher never noticed Erik (who passed him so closely that some testified that Mosher put his hand on Erik's shoulder) and therefore could not have perceived him as a threat, upon being informed who Erik was, Mosher instantly treated him as a deadly threat. This speaks of premeditation. Mosher had already chosen his course of action well before he encountered Erik. At that point, Erik had one choice; comply instantly and completely or be shot. Erik did not comply with Mosher's order to get on the ground. The tension instantly escalated. Even though Mosher testified that he had been trained to de-escalate encounters with ED suspects, he took the opposite tack. He escalated. The slightest movement toward his holster would cost Erik his life. Mosher was absolutely determined of that. (Obviously this is my opinion. Others will disagree.) Lesson 5: When confronted by police officers, NEVER make any movement toward your weapon. You have two choices and two choices only. Either get on the ground immediately or raise your hands to the sky, shut your move and don't move.

Some will wonder why Erik didn't simply comply with the officer's orders. (I believe, based on testimony, that only Officer Mosher was issuing orders.) We will never know the answer to that, because Erik is not here to tell us. If you believe the DA, Erik was so high on drugs that he couldn't respond. If you believe his girlfriend, he had already made the decision to present his holstered weapon to officers if confronted. If you think about it logically, Erik may have been confused by all the conflicting orders being barked to him. He was calmly walking out of the store when he was suddenly confronted by a loudly shouting officer behind him. As he turned to face the officer, he may not even have realized the commands were being directed toward him. According to various witnesses, he may have heard "Get on the ground!" several times, "Let me see your hands!", "Drop the weapon!" (before he ever withdrew it) and possibly other commands. The rapidity and types of commands clearly indicate (to me) that Officer Mosher was agitated and prepared for a deadly force encounter, expecting a potential escalation. According to the 911 call (14:16-14:18), Erik may have heard the following: "Put your hands where I see them, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground". Two seconds later he was shot. And remember, Erik had his back to the officer when the commands were first issued. Lesson 6: Not every officer is disciplined enough to follow their training. When confronted by police, DO NOT ASSUME they are calm and rational and will make good decisions. Your responsibility is to assist them by being as non-threatening as possible.

The actual sequence of events is murky. Witness testimony regarding Erik's gun runs the gamut from he never removed his holster to he pointed his unholstered weapon directly at Mosher's chest. It didn't matter. Once Erik reached for his weapon, he was shot. What position the weapon was in at the point that Mosher fired is less important than the fact that removing his weapon to present it to the officer was the fatal decision that cost him his life. Most of us know that drawing a holstered gun and firing takes at least a second (if you're incredibly fast) and closer to two seconds for most average people. Since Erik only had two seconds between the issuing of commands and the first shot, he never had a chance. His decision while inside the store (according to his girlfriend) to present his weapon to the officers if confronted guaranteed that Officer Mosher, prepared for the slightest movement from an agitated, high on drugs, armed Green Beret, would shoot him before he ever saw the holstered weapon clearly. Lesson 7: Is Lesson 5 reiterated. When confronted by police officers, NEVER make any movement toward your weapon. You have two choices and two choices only. Either get on the ground immediately or raise your hands to the sky, shut your move and don't move.

Erik Scott is dead today because of a fateful chain of events that led inexorably to his death. He failed to properly conceal his weapon. When confronted about it, he chose to argue his 2A rights rather than leave. When he realized that his argument about the 2A may be the cause of the evacuation he chose to be irritated about it and, more importantly, he decided he would show the officers his weapon when/if confronted. All these errors are Erik's. But Erik's errors would not have led to his death had he not encountered an immature LPO who chose to exaggerate the circumstances surrounding his behavior in the store, further exacerbate the situation by exaggerating his behavior on the 911 call as he was leaving the store (he reported the situation as escalating as Erik was calmly walking out) and then seal Erik's fate by pointing him out to officers who he had passed without them noticing a thing. But even the LPO's behavior was not enough to seal Erik's fate. It took an undisciplined officer making abysmally poor tactical decisions (surrounded by 75 to 100 innocent bystanders, this officer chose to escalate a deadly force encounter rather than simply following Erik to his car and confronting him there) and filled with the fear of confronting an agitated Green Beret to finally set the outcome in concrete.

The saddest lesson of all is the one that may never be learned. It remains to be seen if this terrible tragedy will prompt any changes at all in LVMPD's deadly force policy or their tactical training. That would be an even greater tragedy than Erik's death. For if his death is to mean anything at all, things must change at LVMPD. Officer Mosher, in my opinion, should be fired and charged with manslaughter. (Probably neither will happen.) Officers Stark and Mendiola, in my opinion, did nothing wrong. They reacted to the firing of Mosher's gun and the commands he was shouting. They had every reason to believe that Mosher had seen a weapon, which neither of them could have seen from their positions. They responded according to their training, which, while apparently inconsistent, was demonstrably better than their senior officer, Mosher's behavior.

Soon the civil trial will begin. Hopefully the Scotts will stay true to form and demand changes at LVMPD along with a financial settlement that compensates them for the loss of their son. Perhaps a federal civil rights case will be brought against the officers or the department. Both are small comfort. Neither will restore Erik's life, nor will they ever make the Scott family whole.

It is now up to the citizens of Las Vegas to decide whether they want to live in a police state, constantly afraid of the knock on the door, or advocate for and demand change and press forward until it happens.

Outstanding reporting and analysis, baldeagle. I'm indebted to you for following this inquest so closely and reporting what you saw and heard. Thank you for taking your time to keep us informed.

I'll watch with interest what unfolds in the expected civil suit when the Scott family attorneys can grill the witnessed to get the truth rather than the apparent coverup of the DA. Now more than ever the Las Vegas marketing slogan means what is says - What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. I'll never go to Las Vegas again.

TXlaw1 wrote:Outstanding reporting and analysis, baldeagle. I'm indebted to you for following this inquest so closely and reporting what you saw and heard. Thank you for taking your time to keep us informed.

I'll watch with interest what unfolds in the expected civil suit when the Scott family attorneys can grill the witnessed to get the truth rather than the apparent coverup of the DA. Now more than ever the Las Vegas marketing slogan means what is says - What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. I'll never go to Las Vegas again.

The most stunning thing of all, which I didn't include in my analysis because it wasn't pertinent, is that, after the inquest testimony is complete, the DA can dismiss jurors. This allowed him to dismiss #4 and #47, both of whom were quite active in questioning of witnesses and demonstrated that they were paying close attention. If the inquest wasn't rigged before, that sealed it for me.

The most stunning thing of all, which I didn't include in my analysis because it wasn't pertinent, is that, after the inquest testimony is complete, the DA can dismiss jurors. This allowed him to dismiss #4 and #47, both of whom were quite active in questioning of witnesses and demonstrated that they were paying close attention. If the inquest wasn't rigged before, that sealed it for me.

Outstanding job of chronicling this proceeding. Thank you for your outstanding effort. If it is indeed true, it's truly stunning information regarding dismissal of jurors after the closing of testimony. I can't believe something like this would ever be allowed in America. We have given government the sovereignty of a Monarch. We sat idly by while the "King" dissolved all of our rights little by little and continues to do so. It's time we explain to the politicians with our votes that the people possess the sovereignty NOT government.