TexasCHLforum.com

I was thinking about this shooting on the way home from work. What was the lapse of time between Erik Scott seeing three armed men pointing guns and him and yelling for him to "get down" and "drop it"? How many seconds between the shouting and the shots?

Think about it. You were with your girlfriend shopping, minding your own business, thinking nothing was out of the ordinary and you walk out of the store and then ... "BAM". You see three armed men with their guns pointed at you shouting out commands. How long would it take to get over the initial surprise and shock before you could figure out what to do and react? One second, five, ten?

I haven't read any mention of how many seconds elapsed, just one account from a witness that he didn't have any time to react.

Indeed, how many instances do we know of in which police beat or killed people for completely different reasons not involving a gun? There was that college kid who got tasered when Kerry was speaking because he wanted to ask a question and, of course, Rodney King, and numerous others. The fact that this was a MWAG is different, but the situation is not unique. The police have to make snap judgments and sometimes they make the wrong choice, and sometimes that wrong choice would have been preventable had the dept chosen better officers, provided better leadership and training, and followed safety protocols.

In this instance, it appears it was preventable. Would a CHLer have had sufficient cause to fire in fear for his life if he were in the police's shoes? I don't think so. If they felt safe enough to let him move about in a crowd freely, safe enough to approach him, then they did not think he was an immediate threat and they put him in the position in which the intensity was increased by deciding to make contact in a crowded area and deciding to give him directions related to the movement of the gun inside that crowd. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

But I don't think it is so much an issue for CHLers as it is an issue for citizens that we have poorly trained officers who will place us in poor positions then act aggressively against us due to the stress they created. There are many, many fine officers and they shouldn't tolerate officers like this who bring them down. They do too often because of the brotherhood code among them and the fear of retaliation for whistle-blowing. Unfortunately, I think the leadership is most often to blame. They hire them, retain them, lead and train them, hear the complaints against them, and still keep them on and keep the environment that allows this stupidity to thrive to flourish. And now another guy is dead because of it.

WildBill wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

PeteCamp wrote:And let me point out one thing we may not have considered. IF the LVMPD officers acted in bad faith and broke the law, and IF they are convicted of murder, it WILL send a very chilling message to every officer who puts on a gun and badge to go to work in the morning.

The LVMPD officers will NEVER be convicted of murder.

If LEOs can shoot a guy 41 times for trying to show his wallet and not be convicted of murder, I don't think there is any question they can shoot someone who actually has a gun seven times, and not be convicted of murder.

That was not my point. My point is that the shooting of Mr. Scott does not have the elements of the crime of murder. See SeamusTx's earlier post discussing the definition of murder.

We're sort of in agreement and coming to the same place from different directions. The Diallo case I was referring to had some of the same elements as this case, except that Diallo turned out to be unarmed. Those officers were tried for second degree murder and acquitted. I think many people may use the term "murder" in more of a moral sense --unjust killing-- than in strict accordance with the correct legal definition.

WildBill wrote:Think about it. You were with your girlfriend shopping, minding your own business, thinking nothing was out of the ordinary and you walk out of the store and then ... "BAM". You see three armed men with their guns pointed at you shouting out commands. How long would it take to get over the initial surprise and shock before you could figure out what to do and react? One second, five, ten?

We don't whether Mr. Scott was minding his business or already knew that he had been "made" or warned to leave the store. That is a crucial point.

That said, when you find multiple armed men pointing weapons at you, you are very short on options. All I can think of is to freeze or fall to your knees and puke. The latter option seems likely in my case.

- Jim

Hoi Polloi wrote:If they felt safe enough to let him move about in a crowd freely, safe enough to approach him, then they did not think he was an immediate threat and they put him in the position in which the intensity was increased by deciding to make contact in a crowded area and deciding to give him directions related to the movement of the gun inside that crowd. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I still don't understand the tactics of the LVPD. Confronting and shooting "an armed suspect" in a crowd seems to be an awful way to handle this situation.

Hoi Polloi wrote:Would a CHLer have had sufficient cause to fire in fear for his life if he were in the police's shoes? I don't think so.

You will never get the leeway that police officers get. Your mission profile is different. Your public image is different. Your legal representation is different (and costs you a lot more money). Deal with it. Preferably in advance.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

WildBill wrote:Think about it. You were with your girlfriend shopping, minding your own business, thinking nothing was out of the ordinary and you walk out of the store and then ... "BAM". You see three armed men with their guns pointed at you shouting out commands. How long would it take to get over the initial surprise and shock before you could figure out what to do and react? One second, five, ten?

We don't whether Mr. Scott was minding his business or already knew that he had been "made" or warned to leave the store. That is a crucial point.

That said, when you find multiple armed men pointing weapons at you, you are very short on options. All I can think of is to freeze or fall to your knees and puke. The latter option seems likely in my case.

- Jim

If I were "made" and asked to leave a store, I would do so, but I wouldn't expect to exit to three guns aimed at my COM. At least I would have thought that a week ago.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

...There are many, many fine officers and they shouldn't tolerate officers like this who bring them down. They do too often because of the brotherhood code among them and the fear of retaliation for whistle-blowing. Unfortunately, I think the leadership is most often to blame. They hire them, retain them, lead and train them, hear the complaints against them, and still keep them on and keep the environment that allows this stupidity to thrive to flourish...

Public unions do not serve the public anymore than Civil Service serves the public.

VMI77 wrote:I think many people may use the term "murder" in more of a moral sense --unjust killing-- than in strict accordance with the correct legal definition.

The distinction between premeditated murder and manslaughter by accident or bad judgment has been recognized as far back as recorded history goes.

Under current U.S. law, you're pretty much nailed to the wall either way. Both are felonies and result in the same lifelong loss of rights.

- Jim

It's interesting the video hasn't been released in this case and in the case of the HPD officers allegedly beating a high school student. How quickly were the tapes of Joe Horn's 911 call released to the media?

Thanks for pointing out my error. I was thinking of all the variations of homicide and yet could only conjur up the word "murder." I am absolutely positive the officers did not premeditate killing the actor. Their actions could be construed by a jury to have resulted in his death. And as SeamusTX pointed out, a death is a death - consequences can be severe.

Based on what I have learned about Erik's father, I don't think there is any chance the episode will be covered up and white-washed.

One thing I learned from this thread. The definition of murder.

I don't get it, why couldn't an approach like this one be used? Gun in one hand and taser in the other?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4179984/carj ... t_id=87937

Maybe it is time to get those CCW badges we all used to make fun of. Maybe if something like that were visible we wouldn't get shot. Could pin it to your holster if you OWB carry.