“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” said Daniel Webster in arguing the McCulloch v. Maryland case in 1819. Webster, was of course, prescient, but limited in scope as he was referring to businesses and institutions ground under by overweening governmental power. The power of government to destroy is not limited to taxation. There are, in fact, two powers that affect the average man on a daily basis: the power to arrest and the power to prosecute.
“Our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” said John Adams, founding father and America’s second president. It is for this reason that we must always be careful to appoint as our police officers and prosecutors, men and women of the highest moral character. In their hands, in the exercise of their discretion on our behalf, we place, figuratively and literally, the power to destroy, the power to take life and liberty, to sunder families and destroy reputations. Nowhere is the abuse of these powers more evident in contemporary America than in the Las Vegas Valley of Nevada.
Since August of 2010, I’ve been reporting on the shooting of Erik Scott by thee police officers of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police. All of my updated (reprised) articles on that case are available in the SMM Erik Scott Case Archive. I have also been reporting on the most egregious behaviors of other Metro officers (lesser abuses obviously occur daily), and also officers of the Henderson police force, such as the Adam Greene case analyzed in Update 16. I’ll be updating that particular case in the next Scott case article, which will be coming soon.
My interest in the Scott—and related—cases, stems from my police experience and a desire to explain to the public not only what is wrong with those cases, but what professional, constitutional law enforcement can and must be. To that end, I am unaware of any law enforcement agency and any group of officers more worthy of being the very models for a “how not to do law enforcement” textbook than Metro and its officers.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal’s recent five part series on Metro was a reasonable beginning from a newspaper that seems all but unable to state the obvious in reporting on Metro. While the R-J did bring to light a number of interesting cases, including an officer that killed a man by cutting his throat (?!) and shooting him, yet suffered no discipline (the universal Metro outcome in any shooting of a citizen), it treated Metro’s version of the Scott case as gospel, and has been almost completely incurious about it, failing to ask even the most obvious questions. For example, its article on the Public Administrator’s office failed to interview Steve Grodin, the Deputy PA involved in the illegal search and seizure of Scott’s home, and failed to ask any meaningful questions about that case, instead allowing the Public Administrator to praise himself and his agency. I’ll be writing more about this soon.
In any law enforcement agency (LEA), professionalism and adherence not only to the letter of the law, but to its spirit, is a matter of bottom to top and top to bottom, continual reinforcement. Officers must know that stepping over the line will not only result in punishment, but that even their peers will not abide it. They must be certain that mistakes, and particularly criminal acts by officers will not be covered up or ignored. Even more, they must believe in their very souls that they are the servants of the public, a public to which they owe efficiency, competence, kindness and courtesy. This never means police officers must be weak and ineffective. The fact is that the most capable and professional officers know they need not thump their chests in overtly abusive displays of power. Being “badge heavy,” as officers call it, is not necessary, desirable or remotely wise.
The first line of enforcement in any LEA is the shift supervisor, the sergeant. If they are not the unflinching custodians of professionalism, it will not exist and a police force will inevitably degenerate into a taxpayer supported criminal gang. I have not reported the many anecdotes related to me by present and former residents of Las Vegas because virtually all have asked for anonymity to protect themselves or friends and relatives. But all of their stories, even if only 50% accurate (and I suspect they are far, far more accurate than that), tell the tale of a police force full of arrogant incompetents, goof-offs, brutal thugs, and criminals. I know this: I would never live in Las Vegas, because I simply could not trust the police, and would have to live in fear—quite literally of my life and that of my family—in any potential contact with them. As one who lawfully carries a concealed weapon, I would expect my life to be in mortal danger whenever a Metro officer was in sight. Even the relatively small number of confirmed tales of police misconduct known to the general public make that reality glaringly obvious. If the full depth of corruption and daily abuse of citizens was known, real consequences for Metro might become possible.
And so we come to a disappointing development in the Scott case. I’ll let the Scott family’s news release speak to the issue:
Scott Family Announces Erik B. Scott Lawsuit to be Dismissed
Las Vegas, NV (March 13, 2012) – Upon advice of legal counsel, the family of Erik B. Scott has dismissed its lawsuit against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Sheriff Doug Gillespie and the three officers who shot and killed Erik on July 10, 2010.
‘We are extremely disappointed, and this action is being taken with great reluctance,’ said William B. Scott, Erik’s father. ‘We thank our attorney, Ross Goodman, and his team for their outstanding efforts on Erik’s and our behalf. It’s time to move on with our lives.’
‘We feel Erik was wrongfully killed, through an incredibly tragic mistake,” he added. ‘Officer William Mosher claimed he tapped Erik on the shoulder, and Mosher confirmed, at the coroner’s inquest hearing, that Erik responded by stating that he had a concealed firearm. Erik was trying to comply with the officer’s conflicting commands, when Mosher fired two shots. The commands and those first shots occurred within two seconds. Mosher’s first round hit Erik in the heart, killing him instantly. The second round went through Erik’s right thigh. Officers Mendiola and Stark then fired another five rounds into Erik’s back, after my son was on the ground and dying.’
Despite multiple witnesses confirming Erik was complying with Officer Mosher’s commands, recent Ninth Circuit Court opinions finding ‘qualified immunity’ for police officers, even after agreeing excessive force had been used, makes it difficult to proceed with this lawsuit.
‘While we believe the Costco surveillance-video data — which captured the shooting — provides irrefutable evidence that Erik was wrongfully killed, the ‘missing’ segment of that video makes it difficult to overcome those qualified-immunity legal issues,’ Scott said.
The Reality of Lawsuits:
Most lawsuits are possible because attorneys are willing to accept cases on contingency. This means that in exchange for a set percentage of an anticipated settlement—commonly 1/3 (and sometimes expenses)–a law firm will pursue a civil suit, which was what happened in the Scott case. Without this option, most citizens simply could not afford to pursue any legal action against an unaccountable, corrupt government with an essentially unlimited supply of taxpayer cash. The fact that any LEA has essentially unlimited resources to defend against any suit–as long as its civilian overseers allow it–as well as the power of intimidation—real or imagined—are essentially insurmountable advantages, particularly if such agency is corrupt and unrestrained by the law and any sense of morality.
When lawyers begin to doubt that they will win a settlement, they tend to quickly lose enthusiasm for their clients. In essence, few lawyers will enter into such agreements unless they are virtually certain to win and make a substantial profit in the process. It is this that makes the Scott case particularly frustrating, for there are issues involved, not only for the citizens of Las Vegas, far more important than cost. I’ve little doubt that the Scott family was, first and foremost, hoping that justice–in one way or another–would be done. I suspect they also hoped, by means of costing Clark County the largest possible sum of money, that its politicians might be forced to make necessary changes. Considering the nature of Las Vegas this may have been a vain hope, but a noble hope nonetheless.
Surely the Goodman law firm—and any other firms with which it might have consulted or worked—was more than aware of the issue of qualified immunity. That doctrine is a hurdle in the suing of police officers to be sure, but not an insurmountable hurdle. During my police service, I did not for a moment believe that the doctrine would allow me to do as I pleased without fear of consequence, and those many former officers around the nation that have been successfully sued for official misconduct would certainly attest to the reality that it is not an absolute bar to bringing or prevailing in a suit. Several commenting on the Scott case suggested that it would fail for this reason, however, that could never have been a foregone conclusion for two primary reasons: (1) The police have been and can be successfully sued; qualified immunity is not an absolute bar to success. (2) The attorneys of the Scott family obviously believed, for nearly two years, they could overcome its presumption.
Surely the lawyers involved knew of the rulings and tendencies of the 9th Circuit before they ever agreed to take the case. They must have known that no Circuit is more overturned by the Supreme Court than the 9th. Yet knowing this and more, they pursued the case for nearly two years.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal account noted:
Scott family attorney Ross Goodman said the decision came down to what was one of the most controversial aspects of the case: the lack of surveillance video of the incident.
Goodman said that without the video, he didn’t feel he could overcome a qualified immunity defense for police officers, which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently has bolstered. The appeals court recently ruled that even when excessive force is used by police, officers are entitled to an affirmative defense of ‘qualified immunity,’ Goodman said.
Under federal law, qualified immunity is a defense given to government agents protecting them against civil lawsuits if they act within the established law. Regarding a law enforcement agent’s use of excessive force, a plaintiff must show the officer acted wrongfully to overcome the qualified immunity defense.
Goodman and the Scott family had hoped that security footage of the incident would prove the officers acted wrongfully. But the footage does not exist.
‘We believe had the Costco video existed it would have unequivocally shown that Erik was wrongfully shot and it would have negated qualified immunity as an affirmative defense,’ Goodman said.
In order to accept the R-J’s assertion that no video exists, one must accept—as they obviously have—Metro’s word and that of Costco, and there is more than adequate evidence to believe that their word in this, and other matters, is less than trustworthy. Considering the very real and overwhelming self-interest of Metro and Costco in maintaining that no video exists, the R-J’s uncritical acceptance of their word is remarkable. Blindly accepting such assurances in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary does not well become a newspaper. The Scott family offered nearly $30,000 for Costco footage (an issue I’ll expand upon in an update in the near future), which almost certainly does exist. Keep in mind that I qualify the issue only because I do not have physical proof—such as actual footage in my hand or the hand of trustworthy others—to prove it beyond any doubt. Persistent credible rumors have suggested that several copies of the footage do exist, yet they remain underground, so to speak. It is certainly possible that more money offered for the footage might have produced it, however, it is probable that the Scott family simply didn’t have the kind of money necessary to shake it loose, and obviously, the lawyers involved were unwilling to front it.
It would be worthwhile for readers to remember that, as I outlined in Update 8 a quantity of data equivalent to 128 DVDs—some 256 hours of video data–was recovered from the Costco video recording system—this was admitted by Metro—yet, the exact nature of that data remains unknown to this day. The government and private technicians that are known to have recovered the data have reportedly claimed that they did not so much as bother to glance at the imagery they recovered for Metro, and accordingly, supposedly have no idea what it is. A very large number of questions about that data and its handling remain unanswered, such as why Metro would send the Costco hard drive (or drives) not only to the Secret Service but to Seagate to recover video evidence that supposedly did not exist, yet the R-J is apparently comfortable writing “…the footage does not exist.”
If this is the primary reason the attorneys backed away from the case, it seems odd that it would take them nearly two years to process information available shortly after the case was filed. However, this may be nothing more than the usual course of complex cases: not every issue or its importance is immediately apparent. There is no doubt the case against Metro was—and remains—strong, and it is in part for that reason that I will continue to report on the Scott case and other, related cases. There is a very real public interest in knowing the nature of the law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and other public servants ostensibly serving them.
THE FUTURE:
As Bill Scott, Erik’s father, has said, this dismissal of the case against Metro is not the end of the issue. The Scotts have until July 10, 2012 (the Nevada statute of limitations for the filing of civil suits is two years) to re-file the case against Costco and its employees, and that possibility has not been, by any means, closed.
In addition, the Department of Justice has assigned a group of consultants to investigate Metro—including the Scott case—to render a recommendation for possible future action. That investigation is ongoing, and I have reason to believe that my analyses of the Scott Case, as well as a great many other documents, have been brought to their attention. I do not, however, hold out great hope for that avenue under the Holder DOJ, which as PJ Media’s J. Christian Adams and others have convincingly documented, is hopelessly politicized and racist. For example, in the Florida case of 17 year-old Trayvon Martin, a teenager shot and killed by a man part of a neighborhood watch group, the DOJ has already begun a complete FBI/DOJ investigation into the case, which will certainly result in federal charges for the man that shot Martin. Why would the Holder DOJ ignore decades of incompetence, multiple suspicious killings of citizens, and corruption on the part of Metro, yet immediately intervene in the Florida case? Trayvon Martin was black, and Erik Scott was a red-headed white man, a West Point graduate and veteran, killed in Senator Harry Reid’s backyard.
Notice that I am making no comment about the merits of the Martin case. I have not done sufficient research to have an informed opinion. Am I saying that racism and politics might be playing a role? Could that be possible in the Obama Administration and the Holder DOJ? There is more than sufficient evidence relating to the politicization and racialism of the Holder DOJ for readers to make their own informed conclusions. In any case, if Mr. Obama is not reelected, the possibility for DOJ action on this particular front may significantly increase.
Bill Scott will also be resuming work on his novel “The Permit,” which though a work of fiction, is quite accurate and authoritative on the Scott case. This book will be around a very long time and will continue to be a thorn in Metro’s side for decades to come, which honest citizens must, sadly, deem a good thing.
Like the Scott family, I will also do my part to keep this case alive so that the public can be sufficiently well informed to make wise electoral and legislative decisions, in Las Vegas and elsewhere. The Scott case has already forced changes in the Clark County inquest procedure, a matter about which I’ll be writing more in the near future. It has also prevented the Nevada legislature from passing legislation that would have helped the Metro police union to conceal deadly misconduct from the public, in the same way that it has forced that union to display its utter contempt for the rule of law and for serving the public by encouraging its officers to refuse to testify about their official actions in inquests and possibly, other hearings, another issue about which I’ll have more to say in the near future.
I suspect that there will also be many working behind the scenes to bring to light not only the Costco video, but other evidence of Metro’s corruption, not only in the Scott, but in other cases.
But ultimately, I’ll continue to report on this case because it utterly offends my sense of honor. Despite the fact I am no longer an active-duty law enforcement officer, I still have great respect for those who serve, and I know that most officers, even working for Metro, are not corrupt and dangerous to the public and Constitution they swear an oath to serve. When any of us allow such people to abuse the law, to threaten the livelihoods and lives of anyone, we surrender to them and fail to support those who would honorably serve. I would hope that whether one agrees with all of my findings and conclusions in this particular case, they could at least agree with that.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Mike, thank you so very much for writing this!
Those of us who have take the time to look past the media version of events on this case, oh….are so disappointed. But like you state, we aren’t passing judgement on the Scotts.
I truly believed that Erik Scott was the face of justice. Dropping the suit disheartened me so much that I couldn’t read any more about it. I couldn’t read blogs saying, “See, Metro was justified or the Scotts wouldn’t have dropped it.”
I spent so much time defending Erik, a man (and family) I have never met, that dropping the lawsuit seemed personal for me. I had to take a few days to reflect and try to figure out the ‘WHY’ of my emotions.
Seeing your article has made me realize, I will forever try to find justice for the victims of Metro.
Again, this ‘fight for justice’ began AFTER I moved out of Las Vegas. I finally had two different states to compare what normal law enforcement looks like. I often gaze upon an officer now and feel my heart swell with such pride, compassion, honor and respect. Take that as literal.
I’ve had officers finally stare back at me, trying to figure out why I have an admiring stare on them (they probably think this old woman has a thing for uniforms, ha). But seriously, each time I approach an officer and say, “Thank you for your service.” my heart breaks a little more for the corruption in Las Vegas and the 30 years that I thought that was ‘normal’.
Thank you Mike…thank you for caring. I still have friends and family there and you are absolutely making a difference.
Above all else, it tells me what an honorable officer you were!
Dear Dmoore:
Thanks so much for reading and for your kind and pertinent comment. I have received many similar sentiments from folks in Vegas and from those who have friends and relatives there. It is for you, and them, that I–in part–write.
I have no doubt that the Scotts found themselves in the position of a great many people. Despite having a very strong case, a case they could likely win at trial, their lawyers probably decided, considering the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, they would be at least 51% likely to lose on appeal. We can’t expect every lawyer in America to pursue cases only because it is the right thing to do, they have to make a living too, but my best guess is that is what happened. The Scotts, not being wealthy, almost certainly had no choice but to drop the case and pursue justice by other means.
But no one should think, for a moment, that Metro was justified in this, or a great many other cases. No one was prosecuted or even disciplined in this case–and virtually every other shooting by Metro in the last several decades–because Metro investigates itself and virtually always finds itself to be blameless. And because the prosecutor’s office in Vegas has served as a rubber stamp for Metro, no other outcome was possible. The facts of the Scott case have so outraged the public that the Clark County Commission was forced to act, and amazingly, in the face of union intimidation and thuggery, have yet to back down.
I have barely scratched the surface on all of the problems in this case, which taken as a whole, lead to only one conclusion: Erik Scott was wrongfully killed by officers that should have never been on the street, and his killing was covered up thereafter. I’ll trust in my readers across the nation to be able to intelligently weigh the evidence I present versus the propaganda presented by Metro and its apologists.
Thanks again for your kind comments, and I’ll do my best to honor the memory of Erik Scott and the many others Metro continues to abuse and kill.
Hi Mike,
The famous American lawyer Clarence Darrow once said: “”There is not justice in or out of court.” He is right.
For me, I can only say thank you for being the law enforcement officer you were, and the person you continue to be, truthful and honest. Exposing those who continue to cover up unjustified actions is never an easy task. I have spoken with Bill Scott briefly through email about the lawsuit, and the dismissal/dropping of the same. I, like you, would say that the defense of qualified immunity is just a defense. This defense should have no part in any suit that sets forth the allegations as they happened, and this defense can be overcome. I say it can be overcome, because I faced the same tactic used by the government, when excessive use of force was used upon myself. In my case there was video coverage of 6 immigration officers using unnecessary use of force upon me. In my case the video became lost at the hands of the defendants. The judge in my case was not having any of the defendants lies, and I overcame this immunity after 6.5 years of litigation. My case was set for trial on September 21, 1999. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Phoenix Arizona. What I want to point out is, even when you can overcome this hurdle of qualified immunity the corruption does not stop there. It continues on and on and on. I have copied and pasted the letter I received from the Government, which sets out the terms I would have had to agree to in order to prosecute my case to its end. I never came for the trial. The Defendants made it clear to me, in both the letter below, and verbal threats, I would never win against the Defendants, and could easy lose my life in the process, if I came for the trial. I never came for the trial as you can see why from the letter below. Apart from loving my family to the end of my time, there is not a day that goes by that I thirst for justice against those who think they got away with what they did to me and my family. I will obtain some sort of justice in my own time, because like the Scott family and many other’s, I have given up on the system of law in the U.S. The corruption is alive and well in Vegas/Nevada and will remain infested by those who currently holf these controlling positions of trust and fairness.
U. S. Department of Justice
Civil Division
Telephone:
157-8-1940 202-616-9095
Washington, D.C. 20530
August 27, 1999
via Facsimile and First Class Mail
Mr. Mark Gary Hough
23 St. Catherine’s Close
Coventry, CV3, 1EH
England
Re: Hough v. Gutierrez. CIV-95-0056-PHX-SMM
Dear Mr. Hough:
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) has
approved significant public benefit parole on your behalf so that
you may come to the United States for the trial in the above
captioned case. There are, however, several conditions attached
to this approval of immigration parole. First and foremost, you
will remain in the custody of the INS during your entire stay in
the United States.
The trial is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, September 21,
1999. You may arrive in the United States anytime after Friday,
September 17, 1999. You must purchase a round-trip ticket with
an open ended departure. The flight must be a non-stop flight
from London, England to Phoenix, Arizona. You are required to
send me proof that you have purchased such a ticket as well as
your flight itinerary. After you have sent me a copy of your’
ticket and the itinerary, you may then go to the United States
Embassy in London and obtain your boarding letter. Without the
boarding letter you will not be able to get on your flight. The
boarding letter will identify your flight itinerary and will only
be valid for the flight that you have identified.
An INS officer will meet your plane in Phoenix, Arizona and
you will be taken into custody at that time. When you arrive you
will be required to surrender your ticket and passport to the
INS. You are permitted to remain in the United States for the
duration of your trial. As soon as your trial has ended you will
be required to leave the United States. While the immigration
parole document permits you to remain for ten days, the district
director may terminate your immigration parole at anytime. The
district director will terminate your immigration parole at the
end of the trial, even if that is before the end of the ten-day
period. Because there is no fixed date when the trial will end
you are required to purchase an open ended ticket so that you can
leave on the next available non-stop flight to London.
Your failure to follow any of these conditions, or any other
condition the INS deems fit to impose, will result in an
immediate termination of your immigration parole.
If you have any questions you may contact me at the
telephone number listed above. If I am not available you may
contact my supervisor, David V. .Bernal at (202) 616-4859. You
can send a facsimile of your purchased ticket and itinerary to me
at (202) 616-4975.
Sincerely,
HUGH G. MULLANE, Attorney
Office of Immigration Litigation
Civil Division
Department of Justice
PO Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
3
As I predicted. They had no case. Scott was a drug addled danger to himself and others. Even his girlfriend admitted he had a gun, which you even denied. Case closed. Your effort to make Scott the Rosa Parks of the gun rights movement failed. It is good though that sober minds like real gun rights groups chose their cases more carefully than people like you. Just think if real gun rights groups had chosen someone like Scott to be the face of the DC lawsuits. Instead of Heller we would have gotten the DC v. Scott case and there would be no support on the Supreme Court for 2nd Amendment rights.
Dear Federale:
I’ll not spend a great deal of time responding as you continue to stick with your tendency to misrepresent facts and simply make things up. However, in brief:
(1) All testimony and evidence indicates clearly that Scott was taking medication for a badly damaged back. In short, he was under the care of a doctor, taking legally prescribed medication to help him in dealing with chronic, intractable pain. There is no evidence to indicate anything else.
(2) Samantha Sterner made no “admission” that Scott was armed. There was nothing to admit. It was a fact simply, rationally recounted and never in dispute. As to the idea that I denied that Scott had a gun, anyone who has followed my writings on this case will understand that not only are you wrong, such a grotesque misstatement of fact may well rise to the level of knowing deception.
(3) “…Rosa Parks of the gun movement?” I have never approached this case as a political argument regarding gun control. Never. Any suggestion that the Scott case is about gun rights–which is truly not an issue here–or that I have treated it as such is a serious misreading of the facts and of my treatment of them. Any suggestion to the contrary is deception and nonsense.
As always, I’ll allow readers to decide whose arguments and presentations of fact are convincing as the Scott case continues.
Where has this “Federale” been living under a rock? or he is just completely on drugs and wants to try and push your HOT button. Congrats Mike for stating the facts and putting Federale in his respected place back under the rock where he belongs, one cannot dispute that facts.
In fact, you have tried to make him a maryter to the gun rights movement. That failed. You went on and on about what a respectable member of the community he was; vetern, West Point graduate, businessman. Clearly, like the civil rights groups who challenged segregation on the bus lines, they were looking for a respectable person to challenge the law. Carefully selecting Rosa Parks as she was a respectable member of the community. Civil rights groups passed over several possible complainants because of their less than respectable backgrounds.
You chose wrong. Scott was clearly under the influence of near lethal levels of drugs at the time as the coroner reported. He had a history of domestic violence. He was clearly out of his mind that day. He was politely asked to leave the store and refused; he was destroying private property and was asked to stop; a cashier described him as acting strangely, falling over the check out counter, clearly under the influence of the drugs.
You claimed that LV officials illegally entered Scott’s home to obtain a weapon and plant that weapon on Scott. You also make much of the pistol found in the ambulance that was missed when Scott was searched. You clearly implied that Scott did not have one of the two pistols that LVMPD stated he had at the time of the shooting. Otherwise what was your point with the entry into Scott’s residence by the LV officials?
There is nothing in the record that shows he was using prescriptions as prescribed. Near lethal levels of a variety of a mix of pain killers is not what, if anything, he was prescribed. Nor is that the proper manner to use prescription drugs.
You said he was not reaching for or drawing a pistol. His girl friend clearly admitted that Scott was reaching for one of his pistols. She says he was reaching for it to give it to the cops. You also claimed he had a cell phone or other object in his hand when he was shot.
In fact, he was reaching for and drawing out his pistol when he was shot. And that is the most important fact. Something his girlfriend admitted. She just claimed he was going to surrender it. You claimed he did not draw the weapon or reach for it. Your claims directly contradict witness testimony, especially that of his girlfriend.
But in the end the failure of the Scott family to pursue the case was based on the knowledge that they would lose based on the facts. And qualified immunity has nothing to do with it. The agency would still be liable even if the individual employees get qualified immunity.
Fortuneately real gun rights activists chose a better public face in Dick Heller.
Dear Federale:
Oh good grief. Once again, I’ll leave it to readers to review the facts as I’ve presented them in my writings about this case. Suffice it to say that, virtually as always, everything you’ve asserted as fact just isn’t, and I’ve repeatedly covered all those issues in detail and instead of just saying they’re true, proved them. Indeed, some of it is what Metro wants people to believe is true, and some is what the coroner tried to say was true, but that hasn’t worked out well for them. Neither of those agencies would be regarded as paragons of truth and integrity, in Las Vegas, or among professional law enforcement officers elsewhere.
By all means stay tuned. In the near future, I’ll be revealing what Metro’s star eye-witnesses actually said, and the underhanded, unprofessional techniques Metro investigators used to obtain even that pathetic quality of “witness” statement.
And I must admit, I’m still baffled by this “Rosa Parks” nonsense. It’s as though you suddenly decided I’ve been reporting that the Scott case was about aliens from Mars coming to Earth to steal women. There is exactly as much evidence in my writings to prove that point as the point that I’ve ever portrayed this case as being about gun control. Just amazing.
Federale: Please explain to me why Erik Scott would pull a gun on police officers when he hadn’t pulled it for the normal reasons we all would think a drug addled, woman beating, out of his mind, I guess the out of his mind comes from throwing Costco Merchandise around. By the way, I have been told not to open merchandise in Costco when I was looking at it, they are nazis like that. Erik Scott does have not a good reputation but a great one. He graduated from West Point, not an every day school to graduate from, I didn’t hear his ex wife/wives come out and say anything derogatory about him, just the shit every woman, especially in Colorado, puts in their divorce papers. The guy whose dog he threatened to shoot would say nothing. We have all heard the conflicting commands from the metro cops. I don’t know if in 2 seconds I could respond to anything, with or without three guns pointed at me. Is this normal? Because I think it would take me about 2 seconds to filter what they were saying, especially if I were just shopping in a store. These are the facts of the case that I cannot get over so if you will please explain to me how a minor misunderstanding, no weapons drawn or purposely displayed, turns into a homicide? I do not know Erik nor his family but I am disturbed by this case because I can see no other explanation than the police freaked and shot. I was going to get my ccw before this killing happened and now I think why bother. Mr. Scott did everything legal to carry. He was responsible, and forthright with both metro and Costco, so when people say he had it coming I have to ask why? Did the ccw get him killed? Did a young full of himself wanna be cop over reacting get him killed? Because I do not see how shopping, even legally carrying while shopping, and having a discussion over whether or not he could be in Costco with that gun, could be cause for anyone to call 911 let alone kill him. HE DID NOT PULL THAT GUN OUT UNTIL HE WAS TOLD TO, it was seen in it’s holster by a security clerk. Thank you in advance if you choose to explain further.
As the coroner described, he was high on a lethal level of a mix of pain killers. Drugs make you do stupid stuff.
Well not much of an explanation but then when you are dealing with smoke and mirrors you really don’t have anything to work with. If you really want to satisfy the Vegas population, I should say intelligent population, have your boy dougie come out and explain these discrepancies. He can’t and the law abiding Las Vegas population has no respect for metro which will not hurt us, it will hurt ALL metro officers on the street:) Hear no evil, see no evil etc.
He was on, as the coroner described, a lethal level of prescription pain medication. That is a fact that you and McDaniel deny. The coroner testified in open court on that.
What is your problem? Do you think that a lethal level of prescription pain medication aids in rational behavior? Are you insane?
Every witness, save one, said he had his gun in his hand. Who cares if he also had a cell phone in the other hand?
He was not legally carrying since he was under the influence of illegally obtained prescription pain medication.
Note that three physicians ended their relationship with him because he was doctor shopping for pain meds.
The fact that Metro paid no monies in this case is important. The Scott family had no case.
If you and McDaniel don’t realize the truth, I will be exposing both Scott and your ignorance.
Don’t forget that the Costco check out clerk described him as falling over the check out counter and obviously under the influence.
Eric Scott had a history of cocaine abuse that he eventually replaced with prescription pain medication abuse.
He was in pain and his girlfriend and family did nothing to help him. Shame on you and McDaniel for rationalizing his crazed behavior.
Sir…with all due respect, on what level were the lethal drugs you claim Erik had in his body. I am fixing to silence once you answer.
But in any event, you have not addressed the issues, did he have a gun in his hand or a cell phone. You claimed it was a cell phone. You claimed he was innocent because he was a Green Beret, because he was a graduate of West Point, because he was a business man. None of that was relevant. What was relevant was that he was on a lethal mix of pain killers.
You claim the mix of pain killers was prescribed. Doctors testified the drugs were fraudulently obtained. In any event, drinking and guns don’t mix and neither do any amount of prescription drugs.
Tell me, as a firearms instructor, would you allow a student to participate in training under your direction under the influence of prescription pain medication?
Dear Federale:
I must admit that I often have to wonder about your degree of lucidity. I have indeed addressed the issues, and repeatedly. There is no question Scott had a cell phone in his hand; it was found by his body and even Metro’s chosen witnesses testified to that fact. My theory of the case also posits that Scott did not have time to draw his handgun, therefore, it was never in his hand. This too I have addressed, repeatedly.
I have never claimed that Scott was a Green Beret, quite the opposite, but it is certainly relevant to point out that due to Scott’s background, he was not a common criminal, if for no other reason than than many of the people Metro has shot have had at least some criminal involvement. Scott’s case is very different than most for that, and other reasons.
You continue to harp on the painkiller issue, but never admit the facts: Scott was taking prescription drugs under the care of and at the direction of a physician for a diagnosed serious medical condition. I claim this because it was true and even the inquest testimony did not rebut it. Even the doctors Metro presented at the inquest–their handpicked witnesses they hoped would do Scott the most damage–refused to characterize Scott as a drug addict, quite the opposite in fact. There are very good reasons indeed not to believe anything Metro and the prosecutor presented at the Inquest and elsewhere. You may choose to believe them, but that doesn’t change the facts.
As a firearms instructor I have, in fact, on a number of occasions taught people taking pain medications. The mere fact that they were taking such medications is not a bar to using firearms, driving, operating machinery, etc. I have little doubt I have also taught many others who were taking such meds but did not tell me. The only relevant question is whether such medications render them unsafe in those or similar endeavors. Merely taking such drugs is not the defining issue.
Got this question for you: How many of the interrogatories did the attorney for the Scott family respond to?
Oh, and you should know that 2 physicians ended treatment of Scott because they thought he was fraudulently obtaining pain medication.
The records will also show that the last physician that was treating Scott also ended his treatment of Scott for the same reason, but after the shooting altered his patient records.
Careful where you go, you might end up looking like a fool. Be warned.
And you did claim that Scott was a Green Beret. Go back and check your first posts.
Could it be that he had a cell phone in one hand and a gun in the other? How about the Homeland Security agent who testified that he pointed a gun at the officers?
How about the fact that the Scott family attorneys agreed to settle the case for $500k? How about their offer to settle for $250K? How about the fact that LVMPD agreed not to demand legal fees from the Scott family?
I can tell you that most law enforcement agencies prohibit those using prescription pain medication from carrying or qualifying. Much less those doctor shopping for prescription pain medication.
Oh, Mike, I will let you know how many of the interrogatories that the Scott family attorney responded to. Zero. Because he had no case. Because all of the witnesses supported Metro.
Oh, and qualified immunity for individual officers has nothing to do with the liability of the agency. Qualified immunity has nothing to do with why the Scott family dropped the lawsuit. They dropped it because they had no case. They are fortunate that LVMPD did not demand the full $128K of legal expenses that LVMPD incurred from the Scott family. An act of Christian charity that the Scotts should be appreciative of.
You have really lost all your marbles have you not. You like many, were not there so quit believing everything you are reading. Qualified immunity was, and is the only reason the Scott family gave up on the civil suit against Metro. Please be mindful the suit against other culpable parties is still there for the takings, however, this is not about money that your figment of imagination believes the Scott family were, or after. A murder took place in broad daylight, and those responsible will never be aloud to forget it. Got it!
Dear Federale:
Your moniker and e-mail address suggest that you are a federal agent. If so, I’m rather surprised, in that you continue to so blatantly lie, particularly when it’s so easy to demonstrate that you are lying.
(1) Scott was not engaged in “doctor shopping” as you suggest, and not even Metro made that charge at the inquest, which as you know was simply one of many, that for many years, did nothing but rubber stamp any and every action of Metro officers, thus the unprecedented public outcry and the change in inquest rules. None of the witnesses at the inquest testified to that. Your assertion–unless you are able to provide competent evidence to the contrary–is a lie.
(2) All of the witnesses did not, in fact, support Metro, and do not even today. One witness presented by Metro at the inquest actually testified that he looked carefully for a gun near Scott’s body at the shooting scene and did not see one. This caused the prosecutor to savage his own witness on the stand. Another witness, a physician, also looked carefully for a gun and saw none, but he was not called to testify, as a great many credible witnesses were not. As I’m sure you’ll be following this case in the future, have no doubt that I’ll present a great many witnesses whose testimony indicts rather than supports Metro, to say nothing of the physical evidence. Either you’re ignoring the evidence in the public record, or once again, lying, perhaps both.
(3) While I can’t read Sheriff Gillespie’s mind, or that of his lawyers, I think their willingness to get the case out of the public eye and not to pursue it further in any way clearly indicates that they did not–as you suggest–have a strong hand. Christian charity? Anyone even remotely aware of Metro’s record and their continuing mistreatment of Las Vegas citizens knows there is little or none of that present in an agency that kills and mistreats an extraordinary number of its citizens, citizens who continue to live in fear of their own police force.
So how about it? Are you a federal agent? And if so, with which agency? The public knows my background. Let’s hear about yours. I’m sure my readers would be interested.
A “lethal dose” or “lethal level” of potent painkillers is a relative measure. A few years ago I was in the San Diego area visiting with a cousin. Several years prior my visit, my cousin sustained an injury to his neck that was severe, but fortunately not permanently paralyzing. He had been on strong prescription painkillers since the accident.
I remember my cousin pulling a dose of his medication out of his pocket and showing it to me. “This dose,” he said, “would kill you if you took it. I’ve built up a sort of resistance over time. I require higher and higher doses to achieve the same pain-killing effect.” My cousin was perfectly lucid, totally rational, and absolutely under control. Pain relief medication for him, at his then-current doses, would have been lethal for me.
Federale should be less careless with his conclusions.
Dear Kent D:
Welcome to SMM and thanks for the correct and insightful comment. I suppose the lesson is that some people are so caught up in the “rightness” of their cause that fact and evidence really don’t matter. They can’t matter if their preferred narrative is to stand.
Thanks again!
Pingback: The Erik Scott Case, Update 19: Implausibility and Laziness (Bumped) « Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Erik Scott Case, Update 23: Video That Won’t Disappear | Stately McDaniel Manor