CCW Holder shot by LVMPD - Justified????? - Page 42
Page 42 of 52 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 519

Thread: CCW Holder shot by LVMPD - Justified?????

  1. #411
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    And OJ was found not guilty.
    OJ was indicted by a Grand Jury. This one is not going to trial.

    Your point?

  2.   
  3. #412
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    OJ was indicted by a Grand Jury. This one is not going to trial.

    Your point?
    Sounds even worse, this one's not going to trial. Oh well, there's always a civil court proceeding. I hope the family proceeds with a suit. There are entirely too many unanswered questions as far as I can see. It seems to me that there was some evidence suppressed in the hearing but maybe I'm confusing this with another case.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  4. #413
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    Sounds even worse,...
    Did you read the last news story that was posted about the inquest verdict?

  5. #414
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    Did you read the last news story that was posted about the inquest verdict?
    Yes, I read it. They don't know if he "pulled his gun" or "reached for it". Or pulled his wallet, or reached for it. It appears he was medicated and probably shouldn't have been carrying. It also appears that the police were trigger happy and that all the evidence was not presented (I think earlier stories mentioned evidence that was suppressed).

    I don't know what happened but this coroners inquest doesn't help me believe that the truth has been sought or found. I think we have a better chance of learning what happened in a civil case because I think this was stacked to get the result they wanted.

    Of course then I believe the cops particularly Sgt Coons got railroaded in the Rodney King unconstitutional second trial and that OJ was guilty. I mention that to show my positions.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  6. #415
    The only evidence that I read about being suppressed was the evidence that the lawyer for the Scott family supposedly has and refused to turn over to the police. He claims to have 25-30 people that are going to testify that Erik did not pull a weapon or anything else but refused to provide those names to the prosecuter to question and would not allow them to testify. Even Erik's girlfriend who we know saw everything skipped town in order to avoid a supenoa and never showed up. I am beginning to think the reason that the inquest was so one sided was because there wasn't a valid other side to the story.

    I have seen (and even on the jury in one case) lawyers not present any kind of defense on a case and make a heartfelt plea to the jury's sympathy to get their clients off. They knew that there was nothing that they could actually defend on thier client's actions but could cry enough to sway the jury. I think that we are going to see this same BS in the civil trial that facts are going to be replaced by emotions. You can have all the theories that you want but I will guarantee you that the police would love to have the video of the shooting to show if it actually existed.

  7. #416
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    The only evidence that I read about being suppressed was the evidence that the lawyer for the Scott family supposedly has and refused to turn over to the police. He claims to have 25-30 people that are going to testify that Erik did not pull a weapon or anything else but refused to provide those names to the prosecute to question and would not allow them to testify. Even Erik's girlfriend who we know saw everything skipped town in order to avoid a supenoa and never showed up. I am beginning to think the reason that the inquest was so one sided was because there wasn't a valid other side to the story.

    I have seen (and even on the jury in one case) lawyers not present any kind of defense on a case and make a heartfelt plea to the jury's sympathy to get their clients off. They knew that there was nothing that they could actually defend on thier client's actions but could cry enough to sway the jury. I think that we are going to see this same BS in the civil trial that facts are going to be replaced by emotions. You can have all the theories that you want but I will guarantee you that the police would love to have the video of the shooting to show if it actually existed.
    Maybe the police would love to have a video, maybe not. There was no "defense" in the coroners inquest. Maybe someone else can remember the evidence that was refused. I will look forward to "all" the facts.

    My guess is the guy was zonked on drugs (I assume the drug report was not falsified), when confronted he reached for his wallet and the cops shot him. If on a jury with that circumstance, I would rule justified shooting. But there have been people saying he didn't reach for anything (as I recall some of the early stories). Get all the evidence and we move forward.

    Right now, I am not convinced of anything one way or the other.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  8. #417
    There are too many people testifying under oath against scott for anyone to not make a decision. If anyone wants the reason why the scott family is still pursuing this, read his fathers comments below

    ERIK SCOTT INQUEST: Shooting ruled justifiable - News - ReviewJournal.com

    apparently, now the cops are not the real perps, costco is (bigger pockets always are)

    civil suit not looking good against the cops, but costco may settle for a big amount.

  9. #418
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    Maybe the police would love to have a video, maybe not. There was no "defense" in the coroners inquest. Maybe someone else can remember the evidence that was refused. I will look forward to "all" the facts.

    My guess is the guy was zonked on drugs (I assume the drug report was not falsified), when confronted he reached for his wallet and the cops shot him. If on a jury with that circumstance, I would rule justified shooting. But there have been people saying he didn't reach for anything (as I recall some of the early stories). Get all the evidence and we move forward.

    Right now, I am not convinced of anything one way or the other.
    There were so many false and misleading stories until no on eknew what to believe. He reached fro his gun and I don't have any doubt about that but I truly think he was trying to hand it to the officer. That was a bad move as it didn't really matter what he was trying to do it appeared as if he was pulling a gun to shoot in the manner that he did it. If you are standing there in a ery excited state like the LEO were and something gets pointed at you, you don't have time to examine if it is a wallet or a holstered gun or anything else. If you do you could easily wind up dead. From all the testimony I read there was only one cop giving orders, not three as has been told time and time again. If the drugs caused Erik's thought process to go whacko I don't know but something didn't work as it should have in his brain.

    It was a terrible loss but the primary party at fault was Erik Scott and he had more than one chance to not screw up but didn't take advantage of any of them. He paid the ultimate price but he was the cause of all of this. We can play what-if and make all the accusations we want to but it doesn't change the fact that Erik Scott could have easily avoided all of this but didn't.

  10. #419
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by buddy View Post
    There are too many people testifying under oath against scott for anyone to not make a decision. If anyone wants the reason why the scott family is still pursuing this, read his fathers comments below

    ERIK SCOTT INQUEST: Shooting ruled justifiable - News - ReviewJournal.com

    apparently, now the cops are not the real perps, costco is (bigger pockets always are)

    civil suit not looking good against the cops, but costco may settle for a big amount.
    Have you ever seen the studies on "eye witnesses"? There was just a small story on in the past few days on TV about guys convicted of rape by eye witnesses and exonerated by DNA evidence. Apparently the family has eye witnesses that "saw" a different scenario.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  11. #420
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    Have you ever seen the studies on "eye witnesses"? There was just a small story on in the past few days on TV about guys convicted of rape by eye witnesses and exonerated by DNA evidence. Apparently the family has eye witnesses that "saw" a different scenario.
    Fine. Where are the eyewitness? Scott family holding them out for a civil verdict, apparently, not a criminal one. If I believed leos, or anyone, killed a family member of mine, the criminal trial would be the only thing on my mind. I know this was just an inquest, but obviously, they are gearing up for a suit against costco, the real guilty party. If my atty withheld witnesses from an inquest, he would be fired.

    So I assume that you will stand here now, and based on this comment, say that you already do not believe any witnesses that may come forward and say he did not draw a gun? Because "studies" on eyewitnesses show something bad you saw on tv?

Page 42 of 52 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Nevada: CCW Holder Call To Action!
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-17-2010, 12:52 PM
  2. CCW Holder Fired By Pizza Hut
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 12:29 PM
  3. Gunman killed in robbery by CCW Holder
    By {TEX}Hawaii(( in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 03:30 AM
  4. Bomber/Robber vs. CCW Holder
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-22-2008, 01:28 PM
  5. CCW and crime rates in urban areas
    By tattedupboy in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-16-2008, 12:45 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast