TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote: to throw sand over their poo.

excellent metaphor by the way.

I have no idea as to the veracity of this post, but this was just posted on the Nevada Shooters Forum.

OK, I just spoke with one of my riding buddies that is Metro. I won't give names. He JUST told me that the call in to 911 was for shots fired!!!!

The cops reacted crazily because the man was made out to do something he wasn't doing and when the cops reacted accordingly to the man, he was stunned and didn't/wouldn't listen and brought his arm down towards the gun, didn't pull it out though and he got shot.

That 911 call needs to be released publicly.

Can you charge a 911 caller with murder?

philip964 wrote:Can you charge a 911 caller with murder?

I think you could charge the caller with involuntary manslaughter but not murder. Nevada laws states "involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being, without any intent to do so, in the commission of an unlawful act,". It is a misdemeanor in Nevada to file a false police report that results in the agency having to conduct an investigation. Therefore, the phone call to 911 reporting shots fired would qualify as an unlawful act that led to the killing of a human being.

It would be a hard row to hoe in court proving that a 911 caller had malicious intent, much less intent to get the guy killed, when they placed a call about a man acting suspiciously and carrying a gun in a store. A caller that made a specifically provable false claim, like 'This guy just killed my brother and he has a gun concealed in his waistband and said he would kill any cop that tried to take it from him' when it hadn't happened might be grounds for a case, but I doubt very seriously any of these calls would qualify.

Uh oh looks like this sort of happens a lot in Las Vegas and they have a system for sweeping it under the carpet

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/a-few-quest ... ml?ref=929" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An editorial well worth the read.

Keith B wrote:It would be a hard row to hoe in court proving that a 911 caller had malicious intent, much less intent to get the guy killed, when they placed a call about a man acting suspiciously and carrying a gun in a store. A caller that made a specifically provable false claim, like 'This guy just killed my brother and he has a gun concealed in his waistband and said he would kill any cop that tried to take it from him' when it hadn't happened might be grounds for a case, but I doubt very seriously any of these calls would qualify.

Is the legal criteria for manslaughter malicious intent? On a lot of things like that, it includes recklessness, which is a lower standard of an average citizen knowing it would put a person at risk.

Keith B wrote:It would be a hard row to hoe in court proving that a 911 caller had malicious intent, much less intent to get the guy killed, when they placed a call about a man acting suspiciously and carrying a gun in a store. A caller that made a specifically provable false claim, like 'This guy just killed my brother and he has a gun concealed in his waistband and said he would kill any cop that tried to take it from him' when it hadn't happened might be grounds for a case, but I doubt very seriously any of these calls would qualify.

Intent is irrelevant in Nevada law, as I quoted, "involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being, without any intent to do so, in the commission of an unlawful act,". So yes, I think the 911 caller could be charged with filing a false police report and involuntary manslaughter.

I think there's no question that Costco is civilly liable, if the report on the Nevada Shooters Forum is accurate.

baldeagle wrote:I think there's no question that Costco is civilly liable, if the report on the Nevada Shooters Forum is accurate.

This situation not only angers me but sickens me at the same time. I have a daughter, a son and a son in law that all carry with a CHL. This could be me or any one of them. It scares me in that if this were one of my loved ones these murderers gunned down, I am afraid of what I would do in return. the whole thing stinks and at this point no way will I believe anything that police department says unless it involves criminal charges against the officers involved. if true justification were part of the equation, the proof would have been out on the news minutes after the police performed this execution.

mgood wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I think there's no question that Costco is civilly liable, if the report on the Nevada Shooters Forum is accurate.

Costco is liable but no amount of money collected in a law suit will make any difference. A man, Eric Scott, is still dead. The only thing it might do, if enough money is collected by the Scott family, is Costco changing the way they do 911 calls and handle customers. I don't think that filing of, or collecting on, a lawsuit filed against LVPD will change anything about the way they handle things on the street or 911 calls. It will be business as usual for LVPD once all the dust has cleared and this case has gone away.

seniorshooteress wrote:I don't think that filing of, or collecting on, a lawsuit filed against LVPD will change anything about the way they handle things on the street or 911 calls. It will be business as usual for LVPD once all the dust has cleared and this case has gone away.

It might if the people involved in the shooting had to pay the judgment out of their own pockets but that's not how it works.

seniorshooteress wrote: I don't think that filing of, or collecting on, a lawsuit filed against LVPD will change anything about the way they handle things on the street or 911 calls. It will be business as usual for LVPD once all the dust has cleared and this case has gone away.

Police departments are highly political places. They answer to the city council and who they hire as their leadership is primarily a political decision. I don't mean political in the Republican/Democrat context, just the primary definition of the word.

Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in other group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

A successful lawsuit would most definitely affect political change within the police department. It is unfortunate that a man (rather, how many men?) had to die in order to set up the circumstances for such a change. The direction that change takes is up to the leadership. It could become more hardened, more secretive, less transparent or it could decide to do things right. That's up to the city council and depends on what they do regarding the police chief.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Keith B wrote:It would be a hard row to hoe in court proving that a 911 caller had malicious intent, much less intent to get the guy killed, when they placed a call about a man acting suspiciously and carrying a gun in a store. A caller that made a specifically provable false claim, like 'This guy just killed my brother and he has a gun concealed in his waistband and said he would kill any cop that tried to take it from him' when it hadn't happened might be grounds for a case, but I doubt very seriously any of these calls would qualify.

Is the legal criteria for manslaughter malicious intent? On a lot of things like that, it includes recklessness, which is a lower standard of an average citizen knowing it would put a person at risk.

Sorry, was typing fast this morning trying to get out to church. Yes, you are correct, it does not require intent. However, calling 911 when you are not sure of the situation would not be considered reckless. I seriously doubt anyone reported anything other than they had a man in the store carrying a gun, which was the truth.

Look on the bright side, how did the State Troopers handle the man shooting on the stairs of the Texas capitol building? Much, much, better.