TexasCHLforum.com

The questioning that's going on now makes it quite clear that Metro's goal is to establish that Erik was addicted to pain medications and unable to process the police officer's orders on the day he was shot. I think they are trying to lay the groundwork to obtain a verdict of excusable.

Will his girlfriend testify? I assume she was next to him. Even with no video her testimony is critical. If Scott never pulled his gun, then a big cover up is in process. And why in the world 3 officers had trained guns in a non-violent incident?

[/quote]The prosecutor stated that the disc had failed two days previously but had not been replaced. I don't know if there will be expert testimony regarding the drive. I would assume that there will be.[/quote]

With no collaborating testimony isn't that simply hearsay? I too would assume there would have to be a Costco employee -security -tech type to be available to cross examine. I am beginning to hear the theme to "Fantasy Island"

puma guy wrote:

The prosecutor stated that the disc had failed two days previously but had not been replaced. I don't know if there will be expert testimony regarding the drive. I would assume that there will be.

With no collaborating testimony isn't that simply hearsay? I would assume there would have to be a Costco employee -security -tech type to be available to cross examine. I am beginning to hear the theme to "Fantasy Island"

Keep in mind that this is the first day of testimony in an inquest scheduled to run through Friday. And from the looks of it, it may run well into next week. Secondly, the prosecutor made these statements in his opening statement. So far testimony has centered around the coroner's report, Erik's doctors and one eyewitness. The inquest has just begun. The one eye witness is a Costco employee who claims she saw Erik draw his weapon and point it at an officer, at which point he fired. She knows absolutely nothing else. She did not hear any other officers, did not see any other officers and didn't even see Erik fall after being shot. She seemed very solid on that one point and amazingly fuzzy on everything else. She never even mentioned Erik's girlfriend, who was standing right beside him at the time he was shot.

I have tried to keep an open mind, but when the opening salvo is trashing a guy that was functioning fine prior to being shot dead I see diversion tactics. Use over and over in criminal cases by the DEFENSE counsel, the prosecutor seems to be using the same tactic. A lifestyle is not on trial. Tthe taking of a life and the justification for it is what we should be hearing about. Does the prosecutor beat his wife, have any of the officers had questionable behavior at any time in their life; have they ever used drugs or had a girlfriend that did? Were toxicology tests run on these three cops, blood alcohol,etc. I always use my inverse rule of logic. If it works one way it should work in reverse. In this case it really has no bearing on the shooting. Only Erik's actions and reactions and police actions and reactions are pertinent. It appears it's going to be eyewitness testimony that's relied on to determine those issues. All the rest is smoke and mirrors. Occam's Razor is always absent in legal proceedings, but were it applied here it would be easy to figure out what occurred.

Just ran across this. Appears a lot of shooting victims should be dead even before Metro encounters them.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/fatal-shooting ... 72579.html

puma guy wrote:Just ran across this. Appears a lot of shooting victims should be dead even before Metro encounters them.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/fatal-shooting ... 72579.html

Good spot! I was somewhat puzzled, by the references to "lethal amounts" of this or that. Now, it appears that they have form for this.

Edited to add: Where are the Feds? I was given to understand that one of the benefits of partially surrendering local sovereignty to federal oversight is that, should the local authorities turn out to be murdering gangsters, federal authorities will step in to put things right. So where are they?

chartreuse wrote:Where are the Feds?

These things take time.

As an example, in the case of Abner Louima, who was assaulted by New York City police officers, the civil lawsuit took four years.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

chartreuse wrote:Where are the Feds?

These things take time.

As an example, in the case of Abner Louima, who was assaulted by New York City police officers, the civil lawsuit took four years.

- Jim

Fair comment. But, if the reality turns out to be anywhere close to the stuff (that I have no means of assessing for reliability) that we've been hearing, I'd kinda hope that they'd turn up sooner rather than later.

This inquest proceedure looks like a big farce to set the stage for LVPD not going to have any liability for what happened. Did we expect it to be conducted in a fair and unbiased manner? Strange how things stopped working right before a shooting occured. I am not buying that for one minute. If things go haywire with security cameras they are fixed promptly otherwise, why have them. What a whitewash job this is. Total coverup IMO.

AndyC wrote:It's real easy to prove whether a drive was working on the day in question or not, from a computer forensics perspective (I'm certified, so I know from experience).

You're assuming they have the right drive.

The whole "failed two days before" thing is really fishy. Every full-size DVR I've seen uses standard IDE (usually PATA) drives, available off-the-shelf in any city, and possibly even right there in the Costco. I could believe a broken camera taking a few days, but not a hard drive.

baldeagle wrote:

puma guy wrote:

The prosecutor stated that the disc had failed two days previously but had not been replaced. I don't know if there will be expert testimony regarding the drive. I would assume that there will be.

With no collaborating testimony isn't that simply hearsay? I would assume there would have to be a Costco employee -security -tech type to be available to cross examine. I am beginning to hear the theme to "Fantasy Island"

Keep in mind that this is the first day of testimony in an inquest scheduled to run through Friday. And from the looks of it, it may run well into next week. Secondly, the prosecutor made these statements in his opening statement. So far testimony has centered around the coroner's report, Erik's doctors and one eyewitness. The inquest has just begun. The one eye witness is a Costco employee who claims she saw Erik draw his weapon and point it at an officer, at which point he fired. She knows absolutely nothing else. She did not hear any other officers, did not see any other officers and didn't even see Erik fall after being shot. She seemed very solid on that one point and amazingly fuzzy on everything else. She never even mentioned Erik's girlfriend, who was standing right beside him at the time he was shot.

As to the woman who was an eyewitness to the shooting... I think it's strange that she mentioned Erick reaching with his right arm behind him, lift his shirt, pull the gun from waistband, and draw on the officer, but can't remember anything else even the color or accurate size of the gun (she did state the gun was medium sized but didn't specify exactly what medium sized was in her opinion). I know in a situation like that, I would have "tunnel vision" as well, but I would be focusing on the person (LEO within 10 feet of her) with the gun already drawn and pointed (apparently in low ready and pointed directly at Mr. Scott, but that seems to be "fuzzy" as well ). The questions in followup seemed to make me suspect that the gun that she said Erick drew on the officer wasn't even the one he had In his waits band, but in fact the BUG he had in a zippered pouch. They asked her if she saw him unzip the pouch and pull the gun, she said no, he just pulled it from his waistband. I thought that after the shooting they saw his second gun still holstered in his waistband (I might be off here, since it's been a while since I've read anything on this, if anyone can clarify I would appreciate it.) I have no idea how she saw all of this from the area where she was standing. In all her testimony didn't shed any light on the situation IMHO.
Does anyone know what armpit was shot? If Erick quartered toward the LEO while drawing and aiming a weapon, it seems to me that the officer may have shot him in that area (not necessarily if he had his hands raised). So for that to be correct it would need to be his right armpit according to the woman who saw him draw his gun.
I understand getting the facts and letting some things about Mr. Scott's character be known, but some of this is absurd. This is not a trial, although it is turning into one. One way or another, Erick was shot multiple times in the back while he was down which seems to be of little importance so far. I think we are going to see this man executed twice before it's all over.
We have a very long road ahead until we start to clearly see what actually happened. If this process keeps going the way it is, we might not ever really know what happened.

chartreuse wrote:... if the reality turns out to be anywhere close to the stuff (that I have no means of assessing for reliability) that we've been hearing, I'd kinda hope that they'd turn up sooner rather than later.

The feds rarely (if ever) just "show up."

Normally the state legal mechanisms run their course. Then, if a plaintiff thinks his civil rights have been violated, he sues in federal court. In this case, of course, it would be Erik Scott's surviving family that sues.

I'm as troubled as anyone about possible evidence tampering, but that is a done deal now if it has occurred.

- Jim

Well from the newspaper articles so far it appears the inquest is over.

Erik Scott was a prescription drug abuser with lethal doses of opiates in his body making him "dazed" so that he incorrectly responded to one officer's command to "get down on the ground" and instead drew his gun and pointed it at that officer.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/se ... rik-scott/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems to tie it all in a neat package.

Or, the DA is presenting all the evidence of Erik deserving to be shot in Day 1 and the rest of the evidence showing he did not in Day 2. It would seem a logical process to present the evidence, since his addiction to pain medication and a witness who said he drew his gun cannot be swept under the carpet.

I guess we will see.