Quantcast

Legally Armed CITIZEN Killed By Hoplophobia

Philo® ~PWCM~JLA ✩ 2012/06/01 22:48:18
Scary Stuff, The Police State Cometh!
Hey, I'm An Hoplophobe & I Resent This Posting
Undecided
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Erik Scott was a West Point graduate who went on to serve honorably
in the Army, get his MBA from Duke and establish a lucrative career in
real estate and as a sales rep for a medical device company. He was 38
years old when he was gunned down in portico of a Las Vegas area Costco
store by officers from the Las Vegas Metro Police Department. While it
was 7 bullets from the only people we’re supposed to trust with guns
that snuffed out Erik Scott’s life, what really killed him was an
irrational fear of firearms – hoplophobia.


Scott and his girlfriend had been shopping in the Costco, but had
been asked to leave when an employee spotted Scott’s lawfully carried
handgun. Scott had inadvertently exposed the gun when he squatted down
to inspect some merchandise. He informed the employee that he was
legally carrying the gun and was in possession of a valid Nevada
concealed weapons permit, but was informed that Costco has a policy
against carrying firearms in their stores.







A brief argument ensued, some raised voices and obvious frustration
on Scott’s part, but witnesses said it didn’t seem like a big deal. They
saw nothing particularly threatening about the incident or the
clean-cut, good looking young man. The store manager who had spoken with
Scott seemed satisfied by Scott’s reassurance that he was a legal
firearm carrier and would be finished with his shopping in a few
minutes. But a store Loss Prevention Officer called the police and
reported that an armed man was behaving erratically in the store.


That report, based on irrational fear, and perhaps some personal
envy, triggered events which quickly spiraled out of control. It seems
that the fear factor was taken up a notch with each description of the
story to the point that responding officers believed they were going
into a violent hostage situation with a heavily armed and dangerous
Green Beret.


Las Vegas MPD responded with a city-wide alert, street closures,
helicopter support and deployment of a Mobile Command Center. The first
officers on the scene arrived as Costco employees were following
telephone instructions from the police to calmly evacuate the store.


As Scott and his girlfriend fell in with other patrons flowing out of
the exit door, the Loss Prevention Officer who started the whole mess
pointed toward Scott and a police officer at the door suddenly began
yelling “Stop! I said Stop! Drop the gun! Get on the ground! Get on the
ground!”


He fired these conflicting commands in quick succession giving Scott
no opportunity to comply with any of them and then fired two rounds at
Scott’s chest. As the officer began yelling and Scott realized he was
the subject of the commands, he turned, lifting his hands, and
apparently tried to follow the legal requirement to immediately inform
an officer that he was an armed weapons permit holder, but he didn’t
have time.


The officer’s frantic orders lasted for a slow count of 3 and were
immediately followed by the two gunshots, a momentary pause, and a
volley of several more shots. There was no pause or hesitation between
the commands and the shots. The first round struck Erik Scott in the
heart, the second hit his right thigh. As he collapsed to the ground,
two other officers fired 5 more shots into his back. Numerous witnesses
reported that they saw Scott turn and declare that he was a permit
holder. Many said they could see both of his hands and that he made no
threatening move. All agreed that the only gun they saw was the one in
Scott’s waistband on his right hip.


Other witnesses reported that they saw Scott’s body removed by EMTs
and saw nothing on the ground except blood and a cell phone, or sun
glasses. EMTs reported that they removed Scott’s gun and holster from
the waistband of his jeans in the ambulance and that they saw no other
gun, yet, after police broke into Scott’s apartment and confiscated the
firearms there, the story came out that Scott was carrying two guns that
day.


A picture of the second gun, on the ground near a cell phone, after
the blood on the pavement had been cleaned up, is the “proof” that Scott
had two guns and pulled one on MPD officers. The store’s video
surveillance system inexplicably malfunctioned for the several seconds
of the shooting.


A coroner’s inquest concluded that the shooting was justified, just
as a similar inquest had concluded that the gunning down of an unarmed,
small-time pot dealer in his apartment a short time before the Scott
shooting was ruled to be justified. Just as such coroner’s inquests have
concluded that officer involved shootings were justified in 199 out of
200 incidents since 1976.


Erik Scott’s family has strongly contested the conclusions of the
coroner’s inquest and the entire inquest process. They succeeded in
getting some changes made to that process, but those changes have been
held up by suits from the police union.


The Scott’s filed a wrongful death suit in federal court, but
recently dropped that effort, convinced that they had no hope of winning
with the system stacked against them.


Erik Scott’s father, a former Air Force flight test engineer and
writer for the prestigious aerospace magazine Aviation Week & Space
Technology, has painted a sympathetic, fictionalized portrait of Erik
and the events of that day as part of a new novel he is offering in
serialized form at ThePermit.blogspot.com
in hopes of maintaining awareness of Erik’s tragic death and bringing
attention to corruption within the justice system and government of Las
Vegas.


The police have a difficult job. They are put in positions and asked
to do things that most of us would run away from, but authority and
power must be tempered with responsibility and accountability. For
decades lawmakers and courts have built up walls of protection around
police and other government workers. It is critical that these public
servants be protected from frivolous suits and baseless harassment, but
they must be held accountable for their actions and investigations into
their activities must be beyond reproach. That is not the case
currently.


When one person’s irrational fear of a peacefully armed man can
result in that man being gunned down by police with no consequences for
anyone except the victim and his friends and family, something is
terribly, terribly wrong. Hoplophobia killed Erik Scott and a corrupt
system allowed his accusers and executioners get away with it.

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Duke----The Non Racist, Fun... 2012/06/02 00:16:29 (edited)
    None of the above
    Duke----The Non Racist, Funny Duke !
    +7
    While an unfortunate shooting by some “Look at me, I’m a big sh_t, I can do anything police”



    There are two key sentences that could have prevented this idiot from getting shot, which was, first “ He was informed that Costco has a policy against carrying firearms in their stores.” (He was informed).



    Second “The store manager who had spoken with Scott seemed satisfied by Scott’s reassurance that he was a legal firearm carrier and would be finished with his shopping in a few minutes.” (Wrong, he should have shut up before that and just left the store).



    Another asinine thing was the “store Loss Prevention Officer” you know, those Barney Fife types.



    Sounds like just pure stupidity all the way around. And as the ole saying goes, "Stupid is as Stupid Does" Case closed

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Bob DiN 2012/06/05 06:06:50
    Scary Stuff, The Police State Cometh!
    Bob DiN
    +2
    Big Brother Government is here.
  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2012/06/04 13:30:33
    Scary Stuff, The Police State Cometh!
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +2
    A very great tragedy
  • U-Dog 2012/06/04 05:32:47
    Scary Stuff, The Police State Cometh!
    U-Dog
    +5
    While the paramiltary police state definately do commeth this guy is dead in part due to his own stupidity. Whether thru ignorance or willfull pride he carried his weapon onto private property where it was specifically banned and then he seemed to assume that everyone in this nutty society would react in a calm rational manner to his violation of the rules.

    I feel for the guy and his family but in all honesty what he did sounds almost as smart as testing out your right to free speech by walking into a biker bar and telling everyone they should learn from their idiot parents mistakes and try birth control.
  • Stryder 2012/06/04 04:15:31
    Scary Stuff, The Police State Cometh!
    Stryder
    +2
    This has lawsuit written all over it. And justifiably so.
  • themadhare ~IJM 2012/06/03 23:49:11
  • abubinc... themadh... 2012/06/04 04:16:15 (edited)
    abubincrazy
    +6
    I would seriously question WHOSE version of events is accurate.
    The "facts" are often the first casualty of any police shooting.
  • Philo® ... themadh... 2012/06/04 15:23:06
    Philo® ~PWCM~JLA ✩
    +1
    OK, the Sun account sounds like police propaganda to me...
  • themadh... Philo® ... 2012/06/04 15:30:50
    themadhare ~IJM
    +1
    yeah, it struck me that way too, but the other one seems more credible.
  • Philo® ... themadh... 2012/06/04 15:33:13
    Philo® ~PWCM~JLA ✩
    +1
    the second? yeah, but the victim's girlfriend's "testimony" just being her on tape seems a bit suspect to me.
  • Max 2012/06/02 00:20:53
    Undecided
    Max
    +4
    This reads like another case of a poorly trained cop killing a good man that was doing nothing wrong.
  • Duke----The Non Racist, Fun... 2012/06/02 00:16:29 (edited)
    None of the above
    Duke----The Non Racist, Funny Duke !
    +7
    While an unfortunate shooting by some “Look at me, I’m a big sh_t, I can do anything police”



    There are two key sentences that could have prevented this idiot from getting shot, which was, first “ He was informed that Costco has a policy against carrying firearms in their stores.” (He was informed).



    Second “The store manager who had spoken with Scott seemed satisfied by Scott’s reassurance that he was a legal firearm carrier and would be finished with his shopping in a few minutes.” (Wrong, he should have shut up before that and just left the store).



    Another asinine thing was the “store Loss Prevention Officer” you know, those Barney Fife types.



    Sounds like just pure stupidity all the way around. And as the ole saying goes, "Stupid is as Stupid Does" Case closed
  • abubinc... Duke---... 2012/06/04 04:17:53
    abubincrazy
    +2
    Actually, unless it's on video, we have no idea what happened.
  • Navin J... Duke---... 2012/08/26 17:55:33
    Navin Johnson (The Jerk)
    +1
    agreed
  • Bozette 2012/06/01 23:40:03
    Undecided
    Bozette
    +6
    A couple of questions come to mind. First, was it clearly posted at all entrances to the store that Costco has a no guns policy? Second, is there testimony or evidence that the store manager was allowing him to finish his shopping?
  • Marvelo... Bozette 2012/06/28 17:48:13
    Marvelous Wildfire
    +1
    Yes it's clearly posted at all entrances of Costco.
  • Bozette Marvelo... 2012/07/06 22:14:35
    Bozette
    +1
    Thank you, having never shopped there I didn't know. Themadhare posted a couple of articles on the shooting above. In this one it says that the store manager said the policy is not posted in the store and others have obliged them by taking them to their cars when asked.

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/ne...
  • Waldorf 2012/06/01 23:36:53 (edited)
    Undecided
    Waldorf
    +4
    I want to know more about the scared and nervous cop who rushed his decision to shoot.
  • Bozette Waldorf 2012/06/01 23:46:35
    Bozette
    +5
    I'd like to know why two others felt the need to shoot him five more times in the back as well, even though he had been cooperating, and already had a chest and leg wound.
  • Cuppajo 2012/06/01 23:07:57
    Undecided
    Cuppajo
    +7
    Gee, if he'd have been a democrat or black we might actually hear about this on the news.
  • Nonpartisan 2012/06/01 23:04:19
    Undecided
    Nonpartisan
    +4
    Anywhere, the owner of the property sets the rules, if they have a rule against weapons no permit makes any difference you have violated the property owners rules. I can not speak for the Police, I was not there, however: he had no right to carry any weapon where the property owner has a rule against it, regardless who issued you a "permit".
  • Waldorf Nonpart... 2012/06/01 23:33:50 (edited)
    Waldorf
    +3
    Which DOES NOT lead to being shot.
  • Nonpart... Waldorf 2012/06/02 13:40:21
    Nonpartisan
    +3
    As I said I can not speak for the Police, I was not there and there is not enough information to judge the actions of anyone. I do know that if you came into the facility where I used to work with any weapon, our security guards were so poorly trained and trigger happy that you were in serious danger of being shot even if you were not carrying any weapon. Getting shot is the risk that you deliberately take when you decide to carry a gun, they are not toys, when people see them they sometimes do what my neighbor says he would do and shoot first and ask questions later.
  • edifyguy Nonpart... 2012/06/04 14:43:02
    edifyguy
    +3
    That's because so many people have the aforementioned irrational fear of guns!
  • Navin J... edifyguy 2012/08/26 17:54:37
    Navin Johnson (The Jerk)
    yes,i do,i can do without one
  • Navin J... Nonpart... 2012/08/26 17:49:31
    Navin Johnson (The Jerk)
    that's why i refuse to even OWN a gun
  • Navin J... Nonpart... 2012/08/26 17:57:34
    Navin Johnson (The Jerk)
    i really do believe you stand a better risk getting shot carrying a gun then if your not
  • edifyguy Waldorf 2012/06/04 14:43:33
    edifyguy
    +3
    Right. It could lead to trespassing charges, but no more.
  • Navin J... Waldorf 2012/08/26 17:56:45
    Navin Johnson (The Jerk)
    apparently,the guy was acting strange
  • Bozette Nonpart... 2012/06/01 23:49:43
    Bozette
    +2
    It is up to the property owner, however the article doesn't mention that the store had it clearly marked that no guns were allowed at the entrances, and this doesn't sound like the kind of guy who would ignore such a sign. It also is vague about his discussion with the store manager. At the time of the shooting, though, witnesses seem to agree he was cooperating.
  • Nonpart... Bozette 2012/06/02 13:59:22
    Nonpartisan
    +1
    As I said I can not speak for the Police, I was not there and there is not enough information to judge the actions of anyone. I do know that if you came into the facility where I used to work with any weapon, our security guards were so poorly trained and trigger happy that you were in serious danger of being shot even if you were not carrying any weapon. Getting shot is the risk that you deliberately take when you decide to carry a gun, they are not toys, when people see them they sometimes do what my neighbor says he would do and shoot first and ask questions later. It seems that other parties came into the situation after the initial confrontation who jumped to their own conclusions. The only proper action that the person with the weapon should have taken was immediately apologize to the person representing the store and immediately leave the store and not come back until he was not armed. Having a "permit" does not make you "special" or give you any rights that anyone else does not have, though it sometimes makes you think you are better than everyone else you are not. The place that I worked even required the police to leave their weapons with the guards while they were on the property, unless they were specifically told that they could do otherwise. I can not seriousl...
    As I said I can not speak for the Police, I was not there and there is not enough information to judge the actions of anyone. I do know that if you came into the facility where I used to work with any weapon, our security guards were so poorly trained and trigger happy that you were in serious danger of being shot even if you were not carrying any weapon. Getting shot is the risk that you deliberately take when you decide to carry a gun, they are not toys, when people see them they sometimes do what my neighbor says he would do and shoot first and ask questions later. It seems that other parties came into the situation after the initial confrontation who jumped to their own conclusions. The only proper action that the person with the weapon should have taken was immediately apologize to the person representing the store and immediately leave the store and not come back until he was not armed. Having a "permit" does not make you "special" or give you any rights that anyone else does not have, though it sometimes makes you think you are better than everyone else you are not. The place that I worked even required the police to leave their weapons with the guards while they were on the property, unless they were specifically told that they could do otherwise. I can not seriously think of any legitimate reason why anyone would need to carry a gun unless they had a professional reason, and even then they should not carry it unless they were actually in the business of doing their job.
    (more)
  • Bozette Nonpart... 2012/06/02 14:22:53
    Bozette
    +2
    People do not need a specific job-related reason to carry a gun...it is a right. We live in a state where it is legal to carry and businesses that do not allow weapons clearly post signs at all entrances. The story is very vague on the actual details of what happened before the police were called, but something like this could easily be avoided by posting signs as they do here.
  • Nonpart... Bozette 2012/06/02 15:38:29
    Nonpartisan
    +2
    It is a right to OWN a weapon. It is a RESPONSIBILITY to do EVERYTHING with your weapon in a totally responsible manor. Anyone who carries it everywhere is either paranoid, and should not have been given a "carry permit" in the first place, or does not understand responsible use of a firearm. It is not jewelry that you wear to impress people, or a toy, it is a deadly weapon which should rarely, if ever, be needed or used, if you think otherwise you are in serious need of psychological assistance.
  • Bozette Nonpart... 2012/06/02 16:47:48
    Bozette
    +2
    Owning a weapon doesn't do one much good if they don't have it when they need it. Of course it is a responsibility and must be handled responsibly. Simply because someone carries a gun, it makes them neither paranoid nor in need of psychological assistance. I know many who carry, or have carried in the past, and not a single one of them did it to "impress" people and no one I know considers it a "toy". It certainly is a deadly weapon that should rarely, if ever, be needed or used, however, if you need it and you don't have it...you'll probably end up dead.
  • Nonpart... Bozette 2012/06/02 18:59:11
    Nonpartisan
    +1
    Frankly, I have yet to hear of the first instance where someone ACTUALLY needed a gun to protect themselves while out and walking around in places like a store.

    The second amendment was put into the Constitution because our Founding Fathers were concerned that the "king"/ our Government might get out of control and seriously expected to have to have a "revolution" every 20 or so years, it had nothing to do with packing it for "self-protection" from some imaginary thug while walking around a store.

    You do sound seriously paranoid if you seriously think that you will ever need it for self protection, the chances of that happening are slim to none.
  • Bozette Nonpart... 2012/06/02 19:15:36
    Bozette
    +2
    Just because they were at a store says nothing about where they may have been before that or where they may have been going to afterwards. Because you haven't heard of it does not mean it hasn't happened and that simply having it scared off a criminal without the need to actually use it.

    We have a right to self-protection as well.

    I used to live in downtown Flint, as well as having to go to downtown Detroit a lot. Last year those two cities ranked first and second for murders in the country. You may never have need for protection, others may.
  • Nonpart... Bozette 2012/06/03 17:02:55
    Nonpartisan
    +1
    Pure BS. I am against the Police using firearms as their first option also. That is why this gentleman got killed. The policy of all police departments that I have heard is never draw your gun unless you are going to kill someone, and when someone they are confronted with is carrying a firearm police generally consider them a lethal threat to themselves and the other people in the area, regardless if they have a "permit" to carry it. I have also traveled in Detroit and Flint and never felt the need to kill anyone there.

    If you want "self-protection" there are many non-lethal options which work better than firearms and will not cause a police officer to think you are the sort of threat that he/she should kill. I support the police also using non-lethal weapons as their first option also, however; when they are confronted with someone carrying a firearm, I have no sympathy for the person with the firearm when they get killed. That is the choice you make when you carry a firearm, you take the chance that a police officer or someone else with a firearm will kill you because they perceive YOU as a lethal threat to them. Pure BS, is what I call your excuse to run around asking to get killed by carrying a firearm, in the name of so-called "self-defense".
  • Bozette Nonpart... 2012/06/03 17:38:32
    Bozette
    +2
    The use of a firearm should be the last resort for anyone.

    Travelling through someplace and living there are two entirely different things. Especially areas such as there are in the city of Flint.
  • Nonpart... Bozette 2012/06/03 17:59:46
    Nonpartisan
    +2
    I did business in both place, it was much more than just traveling through. Most of the people who are killed in those, and other places, are people who carry firearms, by other people who carry firearms. As I said it is more likely, according to statistics, to get you killed if you are carrying a firearm than if you are not. I stand firmly in the group who defend myself with any and all non-lethal measures that are available before I ever consider carrying a firearm.
  • Bozette Nonpart... 2012/06/03 18:24:17
    Bozette
    +2
    As I said, a gun should always be the last resort. I, too, have done business in both places and even that did not compare to living there. Initially, I had a roommate, but the last bit I was there, I was alone and it was a very rough area. I had a stalker, one who knew every move I made and used to call up and recite to me where I had been, what I was wearing, who I had been with...yes, I had an unlisted number, but that phone was ringing within a short time of returning home. Until I moved, I was not even allowed to have my dog as that landlord did not allow them.
  • Nonpart... Bozette 2012/06/03 19:01:36
    Nonpartisan
    +1
    I have also been stalked and assaulted for years by people who do carry guns, and other lethal weapons. Had I been carrying a gun, I am sure they would have done their best to kill me and call it self protection.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/20 20:47:15

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals