Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by dakrat, Sep 29, 2010.
Were you expecting a different ruling?
Based on the evidence and testimony's i think it should be justified. He should of followed officer commands to the tee, and by no means ever have drawn his weapon. Sad that he did, obviously was not thinking clearly.
Do you have to register each handgun that you may carry, on your permit in NV?
"Scott had a concealed-weapons permit for his .45-caliber pistol but not for the .380-caliber Ruger that medical personnel later found in his pocket..."
IMHO...the officers were completely justified.
Do I think Erik Scott was going to shoot them.? No.
Do I think that Erik Scott failed to comply with the LEO's, and instead took actions that could easily be miss-interpreted as threatening? Yes.
Do I think that LEO's should give suspects every possible benefit-of-the-doubt, waiting until they are actually being shot at before they open fire? BIG NO.
The one party in this whole thing that I am exceeding disappointed with is Costco. They have an unposted, unpublished, uncommunicated policy and they have not properly trained store personnel how to best deal with people who carry into the stores.
Yes, you do.
In my reading of the inquest he was instructed to "Put it Down" which is on the audio tape. If this was said before he touched the firearm then he may have been shot because he was trying to comply and removed the firearm still in its holster to put it down. Probably still justified or at least excusable but poor choice of wording. I never read anything that clearly established when this command was said. I think it is to much to specify an officer must make sure a firearm is not in a holster in a situation like they had anymore then if someone pulls an airsoft pistol it is reasonable to believe it is a firearm that is loaded and ready to be fired.
I am sure the civil case will go forward.
It sucks that he was shot and killed but:
He was belligerent
On drugs (Xanax alone makes you retarded)
Didn't do what he was told so he could prove a point.
I don't understand why some people want to "make a point" whether it's the right time and place or not. Like it or not, do what the cops say WHEN they say it. They have guns and not all of them are calm or smart.
Here is the link to the statement made by the girlfriend (Samantha Sterner) to the police, shortly after the shooting:
Please allow me a big double ditto to all of the above and my condolences to his family for their loss. I think enough info came out that was detrimental to Scott's condition at the time that the family ought to really re-consider any civil action.
Does his condition really matter? To me the fundamental question is if the first officer to shoot was justified in deploying deadly force based on Scott's actions. The inquest said the officer was justified. The fact he had drugs in his system, or threatened a neighbor and his dog a while ago, or got prescriptions illegally might get suppressed in an actual civil case. If they think they can win they should go forward this is their only option available to in their view hold the "Authorities" accountable. The courts will decide.
She's the one who didn't show up to the inquest and wouldn't testify under oath, right?
So why should anything she said be believed?
Not trying to stir anything up, but why would you disarm yourself, should have let the police do it. You pull the gun, you are in trouble.
Wow he was carrying a Ruger LCP instead of a Kel-Tec P3AT. Those are some pretty crazy rules. They don't track serial numbers so it just comes down to the differences between a LCP and P3AT making you a criminal.
I just finished watching the girlfriend's statement .... plain as day - officers asking him to get down, he instead is going for his weapon to "disarm".
Justifiable if you ask me. Disappointing that it happened, and must be absolutely devastating to the family - but I wouldn't hold those cops accountable.
I too see Costco as a culpable party for the reasons you state.
Your little cartoon would indicate you disagree with the ruling. Well guess what? Just because someone wears a tie, has a nice smile and attended college does not exempt them from ******bag behavior that can get themselves shot. Not all bad guys have dark skin and saggy pants.
Becasue of this -Scott shouldn't have been carring his firearm -PERIOD!
"Scott's post-mortem blood test showed high levels of the painkiller morphine and the anti-anxiety drug Xanax."
A fatal mistake on Scott's part!
Which raises a great scenario!
You're at a gas station late at night, filling up your car. You see a good looking, well built, white male, clean cut, shirt & tie, approach you. Military bearing. As he approaches, you notice bloodshot eyes, glassy look. A little unsteady on his feet. As he further approaches you notice a gun in his waist.
You have a gun. What do you do with it? Leave it in holster? Hand on gun only? Draw it?
You ask him, "how can I help you sir?" No answer. Do you tell him don't reach for his gun? Or do you not say anything?
He continues to approach you. Do you tell him: "That's far enough sir." Or do you let him continue? Rush and tackle him for a little mano-a-mano? You run away? Scream like a girl?
He continues to approach you and starts to reach for the gun. Do you hope he's going to put it down? What do you do?
He has the gun out and begins to bring it up, what do you do?
All this is over within 3 seconds.
Do you have the balls to shoot a well dressed clean cut good looking white guy? Be honest with yourself.
I'd put $5 on any drug-related evidence not being suppressed as the evidence standard is much lower in civil cases than criminal. The drugs are absolutely germane to the ACTIONS that led to the justified deadly force.
Here are a couple of terms for your research: "totality of circumstances" and "preponderance of evidence". If, after your research, you still believe his condition doesn't matter and his family has the slightest chance of success in a civil suit (especially given the dearth of video to help their case), please be sure to schedule your LSAT soon. You may be the next Clarence Darrow, Perry Mason, and Johnny Cochran all rolled into one. The family's case is totally hosed.