Cops gun down man for legally carrying firearm... WND

Just as I used to watch CNN and Headline News... They exist in the distant past.
I will never shop at Costco again. Asta...
...
UPDATE
this shooting happened two years ago, in 2010
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on Sat Jun 2 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

This info here is the most informative part of your post. So you would rather trust WND for your news which posts 2 year old stories as if they were current to make it seem like gun owners are under constant attack for the sake of politics? Make sense given the asinine nature of your post.

reply to post by stanguilles7

Research the issue a bit more. (hint, this happened two years ago, and WND is a CRAP SOURCE

This guy drew his gun on cops.

www.lasvegassun.com...

No he didn't 'draw his gun on cops". It was found on the ground still in its holster. He complied and they still shot him. "Research" your own link...

As customers were exiting the warehouse shopping club, Mosher, with his gun drawn, watched the entryway.
---
Mosher, describing what happened next, said he waved several citizens out of the way. Holding his gun to his chest, he told Scott to turn around; as he did so, Mosher saw the gun in Scott’s waistband.
---
When he saw that gun “come up,” the five-year Metro veteran fired two rounds. Two other officers also fired, ultimately hitting Scott with seven bullets. Five went into his back.
---
People are seen running away from the store and into the parking lot at a time that would be in accordance with when shots were fired; however, no footage of the actual shooting, outside the front doors, or from inside the store the day of the shooting exists, Calos said.
---
...after homicide detectives responded to the scene and began investigating the officer-involved shooting, a number of items were recovered outside the store: Several shell casings, a cell phone, and a 9mm Kimber semiautomatic handgun.

The handgun was still in its holster.
---
Scott’s family has been openly critical of the inquest process. Following Thursday’s proceedings, their attorney, Ross Goodman, spoke with reporters about Mosher’s testimony.

“What you heard today was the best that the state has to offer. They cherry picked their witnesses,” Goodman said. “And officer Mosher said a .45-caliber gun was in the holster on the ground.”

“So how could he have pulled his gun out and pointed it at anybody? In fact, what you heard today is that Erik Scott was leisurely walking out. He wasn’t posing a threat to anybody; he didn’t make any aggressive movements.”
---
“In fact, he instructed Erik Scott to drop the gun,” Goodman said. “So Erik Scott apparently took out the holster with the gun in it and it fell on the ground.

“Mosher’s going to remember whatever he wants to remember. The fact of the matter was that Erik Scott was surrounded by three officers. He turned around. He was compliant, according to officer Mosher. He was told to drop the gun and he did exactly that.

Emphasis added. There are always two sides to every story. Without anything but the states case and 0 footage or pics by the police after the fact, all we have is testimony by the cops who shot the man in the back whom they claim was brandishing a gun at them but said gun was in fact found on the ground still in its holster.

Said officer has shot and killed another suspect before because of a "perceived threat" then too. Read the story in the link.

I wish there was another gun toting American at the Costco and saw this happening, then he could have pulled his gun out on the cop and told the cop to put his gun down and get on the ground under citizen's arrest.

if the cop ignored the order the person should shoot the cop...


I wish people would stop being cowardly sheep and realize the only power cops and government have is what we let them have, we can take it away from them.

Stop being sheep.

reply to post by Furbs


I has no idea there was a membership needed to get in the store. That does change things a bit. And yes, Im guilty of just reading the original story link before posting. I didn't know about the camera being down for a few days either.

I stand corrected sir.

reply to post by Furbs

Your problem is your selected understanding of the Bill of Rights, and what you think they mean. Without Supreme Court intervention, they would still only be applicable to white men, for instance. Without judicial oversight, women would STILL not be protected by the Bill of Rights.

What I think they mean doesn't matter. Read the framers intent and historical precedence for empires throughout history who illegalized private ownership of arms. From Rome to Nazi Germany, there is your precedence. Of course if you don't already know that then there is little I can do to convince you to even try...

You are the one who dismisses this out of hand so easily apparently. Judicial oversight is your excuse? What will you do down the road when your interpretation is dismissed as handily by someone else? Thats what the Constitution is for. It is its own oversight. Not anymore though. Thanks to people who don'y study history but just make stuff up as they go.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Originally posted by benrl
While the shooting is complete BS, a store has the right to set the policy on guns on their own private property, there was a bunch of this going around in CA (they ended up changing the law to ban open carry) but Starbucks for awhile was cool with Open carry, and reversed it.

The cops had every right to stop him when violation of his CCW, it would be the same if he tried to step into a court house with a gun.

Again shooting BS, but again he was in violation of his CCW by bringing it onto private property that disallowed it.

It depends on the State law. I am not familiar with Nevada law but where I live if a store does not want you to conceal carry they have to post signs at the entrance. Still this guy was complying and leaving the store so why the shooting? There is something fishy about this story something is missing. Possibly the employee lied to police about the man complying or said he was threatening etc.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

Research the issue a bit more. (hint, this happened two years ago, and WND is a CRAP SOURCE

This guy drew his gun on cops.

www.lasvegassun.com...

No he didn't 'draw his gun on cops". It was found on the ground still in its holster. He complied and they still shot him. "Research" your own link...

You are correct. What I should have stated is he completely ignored the officers entirely lawful order to get on the ground, even after the officer's gun (and 2 others) were drawn. He then, according to several different witness testimony, reached for his gun, which the officer interpreted as drawing his gun, so the officer shot him with his gun in his hand.

Thanks for pushing me to elaborate a simplified statement.

If the man, who several different witnesses characterized as 'drugged' and stumbling, had merely obeyed the lawful order to get on the ground instead of reaching for his gun, he would be alive.

He was asked to leave private property by an employee. He didnt. The cops were called, and informed the trespasser was armed. When the police saw the trespasser, they order him to halt and get on the ground, two lawful orders who clearly refused. He then reached for his gun and was killed. His gun was still in the holster, but it was no longer hidden in his pants because he had it in his hand.

I'm sure you, had you been in the position the officer would have been in, would have felt it prudent to just ask the man reaching for his gun to go and have tea and biscuits with you, but this officer decided to protect himself and the public instead.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Furbs

 

Your problem is your selected understanding of the Bill of Rights, and what you think they mean. Without Supreme Court intervention, they would still only be applicable to white men, for instance. Without judicial oversight, women would STILL not be protected by the Bill of Rights.

What I think they mean doesn't matter. Read the framers intent and historical precedence for empires throughout history who illegalized private ownership of arms. From Rome to Nazi Germany, there is your precedence. Of course if you don't already know that then there is little I can do to convince you to even try…

Nazi Germany nor Rome have any legal bearing on the issue of what the Second Amendment does or does not cover. Your inability to understand even the simplest concepts of how the Rule of Law work are compounded by your apparent lack of interest in doing even cursory investigations on your own.

You are the one who dismisses this out of hand so easily apparently. Judicial oversight is your excuse? What will you do down the road when your interpretation is dismissed as handily by someone else? Thats what the Constitution is for. It is its own oversight. Not anymore though. Thanks to people who don'y study history but just make stuff up as they go.

My interpretation of the Constitution doesn't matter. The Constitution is not its own oversight. It is to be interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. THAT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT.

www.supremecourt.gov...

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Really? REALLY? You are going to quote George Santayana in a thread about GUN VIOLENCE while shouting about protecting your right to carry a GUN?

Are you trying to be ironic?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
WHY DO YOU NEED A GUN TO GO SHOPPING AT COSTCO????

That's a stupid question.

You don't particularly need a gun at any specific *place*. You will however, need a gun at a specific *moment*..

..That moment is when you or your loved ones are threatened. This can occur anywhere at anytime, like a flat tire.

WHY DO YOU NEED TO BRING A SPARE TIRE WITH YOU TO GO SHOPPING AT COSTCO????

Obviously, you don't need to bring a spare tire with you - unless you actually care about your own welfare and want to make your life easier: It's called being prepared for the worst.

Same thing goes with carrying a weapon. Most people who have CCWs carry their concealed weapons with them like they carry their spare tire... they just bring it with them everywhere. Just in case, for their welfare and for the welfare of those they love.

Of course, most Americans don't even care about themselves - so why even carry a weapon or a spare tire for that matter? Everyday I go out I see 90% out of shape lard asses purchasing alcohol, cigs, and family packs of the most unhealthy snacks for them to shove down their throats after they finish their 3rd 2000 calorie fast food meal for the day.

Actually private businesses can ask a person to leave if they see a gun. If they know you have a gun then it is not concealed. A business can post correct "no gun allowed" signs in most states and then a person would be in violation if they entered with a gun.

The employee was well within his right to ask him to leave, I just do not understand how that escalated to a cop shooting at him. It is not uncommon for a store to ask a person to leave that has a gun that for whatever reason is viewed.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Ameilia

 

CRIME HAPPENS EVERYWHERE.

Yes, literally everywhere. I can't believe how much crime happens. It's like we live in a society of criminals. My god, there are times when I'm mugged 15 times on my way to the elevator, and don't get me started how often I get shot at in the grocery store, those places are freaking death traps! Grannies are serious about their melons!

Yeah. Makes you wonder why the health insurance industry is so bad! Many people pay $400/month or whatever amount for health insurance! Surely they aren't getting sick every week, getting into accidents every day on their way to work, or falling down the elevator shaft 15 times a month! So why the heck are they spending so much money!!!

But, you know.. some people insure their health to health insurance companies in case their well-being is directly threatened by sickness and disease, usually over time.

Other people also choose another form of insurance that can be effective in an immediate life-threatening situation: a gun.

Not sure why they would drop the lawsuit. If the store has a policy against guns then they can ask the person to leave. The thing is how many people walk up to the doors of the stores they are entering and actually look for a policy and read them? lol So someone saw he had a gun and they flipped out. A man armed but shopping in the store yeah that sounds like a threat alright. God some people are so freaking ignorant!!! Then the police show up and guns the guy down before he even realizes what's going on. How can they possibly call this a justified shooting of a man leaving the store after buying goods or whatever and has a permit to carry concealed?? Oh yeah that looks real good on the report. I would have sued their asses off 6 different ways to sunday.

Originally posted by spyder550
reply to post by diakrite

 

My son in law is a cop -- the fact that anyone can have a gun - escalates every single traffic stop or interaction.

There will be more of this, you are a cop you see a gun - you don't have a lot of time to evaluate the situation and ponder a reaction. The first guy fires and that's all she wrote. Yippee Kai a

Yep... and as a regular law-abiding civilian too. When she see's a gun pulled on her, she doesn't have time to evaluate the situation and ponder a reaction.

Well, there probably won't be time to ponder it while she is being raped: assuming she is one of the 275 reported statistical rapes that happen every day in this country.

reply to post by Furbs

THAT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT.

Belaboring your point in CAPS discredits you you know.

Too bad Eric Wright won't get to have his day in court, huh? He's dead.
Like I said every time you reply you shovel more dirt on his name. You have no right to criminalize him here either. Like you said, it is a matter for the courts, not cops to decide culpability.

By the way... there are three branches of Government. Besides the Judicial, there are the Executive and Legislative. The reason all three exist his to insure that all three must review any changes to the constitution before hand. Not arbitrarily, like you do.

That is the way it was setup, originally. I bet you don't know that either. It was setup like that so people down the road would not take it upon themselves to shoot people in the back for no reason and then dismiss it away like you are doing.

No one who's offended by this story should have been shopping at Costco before or after this incident regardless of what happened. Why support the fascist system you all oppose by funding its blatantly obvious fronts? Ridiculous. If it takes an unjustified murder for people to take action for what they believe in, we're in for a long and difficult learning curve.

As for the man who was killed, RIP brother. I don't care what went down or what drugs this poor bastard was on, no innocent human being deserves to be shot dead like that by the people trusted with Serving and Protecting us. Or maybe I just have a very different definition of what "serve and protect" means. I refuse to respect any form of authority I cannot trust. Anyone who does is a downright fool. Authority comes with incredible responsibility, and unfortunately for us, 99.99% of people just don't seem to be up to the task.

reply to post by stanguilles7

Thanks for the reply. Now were talking instead of sniping. The office in question already had his gun drawn before the suspect left the store. The link states that right up front. Wether he was given the wrong impression IDK, but other witness there stated that suspect was non threatening and never threatened when he walked out the door.

Then the officer(in his own words) said turn around and thats when he saw the gun in the holster at his hip. If he then told the man to drop it, how was the man to do that without reaching for it? If the gun was found on the ground still in its holster then thats what he did. He complied and unclipped the holster from his belt or pants and thats when the first shots were fired. How was he supposed to reach for his gun and drop it and get on the ground at the same time? Rapid barked conflicting orders from the officer compounded the situation for the victim.

Since noone disputes the man acted in a non threatening manner (except the officer who shot him) and the gun was found on the ground still in its holster then somebody is lying. See that?

look.. our turkish police taking action on armed man.
marshal (chief of police, whatever) get killed in fight. he tryed take gun from criminal but get killed.

here video:
www.vidivodo.com...

in fight they saying to criminal;

sob u killed him sob... etc he got shoted from heart

On the other hand the officers behavior is to be questioned at some length. Drawing his firearm and laying in wait at the entrance to the store was a dumb idea. Thats where people are bunched up as they exit. The general safety of the public should have been foremost in his mind. Pre drawing his weapon there almost guarantees that if there is a confrontation and shots are fired then it is more than likely innocent people will be caught in the crossfire.

Instead of diffusing any situation with calm and clear commands or taking the confrontation out into the parking lot and further from others at the entrance he decides to confront the suspect right there. The only camera footage is from the parking lot and shows people fleeing from the shots.

He rapid fire barks conflicting commands: Drop its with get on the grounds surely confused the suspect, who according to witnesses never threatened anybody or behaved erratically. When his side arm was later found holstered then it becomes clear that he was in fact trying to comply by removing his still holstered firearm from his waistband when he was shot. If the officer is the only one claiming otherwise then his statements are suspect.

Lastly the officer has one other fatal shooting that was a "perceived" threat at that time too. Read the link. He's done this before. Killed somebody that he says he thought was going to harm somebody. Dudes inept and dangerous and should be dismissed at the least. Proving he is malicious is a bit harder. He knows that, I'll bet.

www.lasvegassun.com...

reply to post by DrMattMaddix


This is really sickening... Many Americans have been brainwashed to hate guns with a passion... I say we all write to Costco and inform them how many possible customers they have lost for being pricks... Give your friends a link to this unfortunate news, even if they are not members of ATS.

I am so tired of all this BS occurring to this day because some jerks who hate guns from their high horses and think they are doing a service to society by setting the police on law abidding citizens who decide to enforce their RIGHT to own and bear arms...

That cop should lose his job and be sent to prison also for how he handled the situation, as should the employee from Costco...

I am so sad for this man's widow and his family... they should sue Costco and the police officer as well as the police department for instructing their officers to act this way... And if the police officer wasn't instructed on how to react to this type of situation the police department should also be sued, and as part of the sue they should instruct their police officers from now on to not treat as criminals law abidding citizens who lawfully carry weapons...

reply to post by benrl


they didnt have a right to shoot him you moron