As regular readers know, my co-written book, License To Kill: The Murder of Erik Scott, is available at Amazon.com in print and Kindle forms, and also direct from the publisher at North Slope Publications.com. I’ve been working on this case since summer of 2010. The SMM Erik Scott archive, with every article I’ve written, is available here.
Recently, Ed Opperman of The Opperman Report was kind enough to interview me on the case for two hours. I always think I sound like Kermit the Frog on tape, but the interview has been getting good reviews:
Erik Scott and his fiancé were shopping at the Summerlin Costco. Erik stooped to examine merchandise on a low shelf and his shirt rode up, momentarily exposing his lawfully carried concealed handgun. A panicky security guard called management, and later, against Costco policy, the police. This set off a bizarre chain of events that sent a huge number of police personnel–eventually around 60–and even a helicopter, rushing to the Costco. All that for a call that should have been peacefully handled by no more than two officers. Erik never threatened anyone, wasn’t behaving oddly, and posed no danger to anyone. At the order of a police administrator that wasn’t at the scene and had no idea what was happening, the store was evacuated.

Former Metro cop William Mosher at the Coroner’s Inquest, proudly testifying about killing Erik Scott.
Erik and his fiancé were two of the more than a hundred shoppers calmly walking out of the store, where three sweaty, panicky cops lurked by the main entrance, their guns already drawn. Erik was so unremarkable he walked unrecognized right past–within a few feet of–William Mother, the cop that would kill him. The security guard pointed Erik out to Mosher, who grabbed Erik by the shoulder.
Erik turned around, and within two seconds, Mosher screamed three contradictory commands, and shot Erik in the heart and right thigh.
As Erik fell to his knees, his blood pressure dropping to nothing, and then face down on the concrete pavement, the other cops, Thomas Mendiola and Joshua Stark, fired a total of five additional rounds into his back. The crowd, estimated at two hundred or more, surrounding the cop shoot fest, dove for cover, threw themselves in front of loved ones, and ran for their lives. Mosher later testified that he was trained to fire wildly in the midst of a crowd rather than merely follow Scott–who was doing nothing at all threatening–to the parking lot where it would have been far safer to speak with him if Scott were actually dangerous. He wasn’t.
Erik had no time to do anything before being shot in the heart. Despite being on the force only a few years, Mosher had already killed before. Mendiola was soon fired, but for giving a firearm to a convicted felon. Mosher “retired” in January of 2017 after serving 11 years. Stark is apparently still on the force.
Mosher claimed Erik drew his handgun, a Kimber 1911 pattern .45 and pointed it at him–still in its holster. Erik, already dead, was quickly thrown into an ambulance. On the way to the hospital, one of the EMTs found that gun and holster on Erik and gave it to a Metro officer. The gun was quickly returned to the scene and planted on the pavement near Erik’s body.
This was a major problem for Metro. How could they explain the gun found in the ambulance if Erik’s gun and holster were supposedly dropped on the pavement when Mosher shot him? They discovered Erik’s concealed carry paperwork in his wallet that indicated he had a Ruger.380 pocket pistol. They could claim this was the gun the EMTs found on Erik. But where was it? This sparked a comically panicky search for the pistol that ended about seven hours later when the police, without a warrant, broke into Erik’s home and stole the little pistol from the nightstand by his bed.
Erik purchased the gun only a short time before, planning to give it to his mother (she lived out of state) when next they were together. He never carried it, but Metro claimed Erik was carrying not only his Kimber .45, but the little Ruger.
If this sounds incredible, gentle readers, it’s only the beginning. The cover up was so bizarre no Hollywood screenwriter could have imagined it. Disappeared video, tampering with witnesses, tampering with evidence, missing reports, threatening citizens, rampant perjury, virtually any corrupt police practice one can imagine happened in the Scott case. All this and more is in the book. By the time Erik was murdered, it was so common for Metro to kill innocent citizens, activating the well-oiled Metro cover up machine was routine and automatic. It’s a practice that has continued to date.
Metro was used to sweeping its murders under the rug with little blowback. They were shocked when the Scott family, and this scruffy little blog, would not let them get away with murder. Internal Metro sources–there are some honest cops working there–reported that then-Sheriff Doug Gillespie was seen and heard to cry in frustration words to the effect of: “who the hell are these people? Why don’t they just get over it?”
I was eventually able to obtain a copy of the complete Metro report, as well as interviews and depositions, many of which Metro never saw, all of which made the book possible.
The book details all of this, and much more. It’s a fitting tribute to the memory of an extraordinary man. It also reminds us of our responsibility to ensure those we hire to protect and serve remain honest. In Las Vegas, that may well be impossible.
I hope, gentle readers, you’ll buy the book, and recommend it to your friends. The feedback we’ve been receiving from those that have is uniformly positive, and as always, thank you for taking the time to read this scruffy little blog.
I’d like to buy it, but I have a Nook, not a Kindle. Anybody know of a translator (or any other helpful suggestions)?
Dear MEO:
I’m afraid no other formats are currently available, but books are always nice. There’s something about the substantial feel of a book, the tactile experience…
MEO: FYI, you can download the Kindle reader to your laptop or desktop computer from Amazon.
One conclusion is that people should not carry or be allowed to carry concealed handguns in grocery stores or public places.
Another conclusion is that people should get over their innate fear of someone carrying a perfectly legal, constitutionally guaranteed, tool on their person.
People hear fear inducing stories then over react.
Also, is it just me or does Officer Mosher’s lack of physical fitness point to his inability to deal with this situation without resorting to deadly force that quickly?
Being legal does not make it right. Or a good idea.
I agree with you, but only if you will allow me to be the one that decides who gets to do what. There are people that should not be allowed to express an opinion in public, don’t you agree? They just stir up rancor and unrest. And I can think of several people I know of that if we can just take a look in their home I believe we can get some drugs of the street and possibly solve some thefts. Do you really think everyone deserves privacy? And due process? Just a way for the guilty to walk free. Who needs any of the outdated protections in the Constitution, right? We are a modern society and beyond those old fashioned ideas. But this can only work if I am the one put in charge and allowed to pick my deputies to assist. (This is called sarcasm, BTW.)
I got the part about it being sarcasm but thanks for pointing it out. That is always a good idea, just in case.
But I can’t agree to let you make those decisions, the legislature gets to do that. And if they go to far the Judical Department will straighten things out.
Dear Old Guy:
Well of course. That’s why Democrats don’t want judges that honor their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution. They might make the wrong choices.
I don’t know anything about democrats or what they want. Just know what the laws are, and what is right and what is wrong. They don’t always match up and when they don’t the laws have to be changed. The constitution has been amended twenty eight times. Could use a few more amendments.
Dear Old Guy:
Should we lose the Second Amendment, the Constitution won’t matter anymore.
I am not in favor of losing the second amendment. Nobody said anything about that. I am against concealed carry or any carry of handguns in crowded or public places. It does more harm than good.
If we need to go to war as milita which is what the second amendment is all about we will need machine guns and other military weapons. Hand guns will not help against in an armed conglict.
Dear Old Guy:
Actually, concealed carry in public places is far from dangerous or harmful. And the Second Amendment is about the individual right to keep and bear arms, quite apart from any military utility. It is about one being able to protect their life and the lives of those they love regardless of where they may be. Does one’s life suddenly lose its importance when one enters a Costco? Is it no longer worth defending there? A trip to the Heller decision might be helpful: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
If you read the history of the writing of the constitution and the way they dealt with the need for an army/militia I think you will change your mind. The law as followed by the Supreme Court held the same opinion I pressed The court basically changed law that had been followed for over two hundred years.
I disagree with you on the safety and statistics on carrying handguns. More times than not innocent people wind up shot and killed. I am aware of cases where the outcome was the prevention of s crime but I believe the bad outcomes greatly outnumber the good outcomes. I am also including accidental self inflicted shootings and accidental shooting that harms other innocent people.
Dear Old Guy:
I have indeed read that history extensively, including the Federalist Papers and a great many other contemporaneous documents. The Supreme Court in Heller summarized it well, and not in the way you suggest.
Are you unaware of the extraordinary success of concealed carry, which is the norm rather than the exception throughout America? Are you unaware that Americans used firearms, including concealed weapons, as many as 2 million times per years to thwart crimes, usually without firing a shot? The bad outcomes to which you refer are, compared to such things as motor vehicle accidents, small compared to good outcomes.
I have looked st that study, done by Gary Klerk. It is just one of many studies done on guns, gun laws and violence. Most of the studies I say disagree with Klerks study results.
The Heller case was about whether the City of Washington could require safety locks to be put on guns stored at home. It had nothing to do with guns carry. The vote was five to four. There was a majority opinion and a minority opinion. I believe the majority opinion was badly written and poorly written and was the wrong decision.
To date the Court has never ruled on gun carry laws.
I agree with Wyatt Earl. Before he took jobs as town Marshall of Dodge City and Tombstone he had the city council pass a law against carrying guns in public. Then he enforced it by making the cowboys check their guns. I think that is still a good idea.
Dear Old Guy:
Not quite. While the Supreme Court has not ruled definitively on concealed carry/open carry, the Heller decision made clear the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental, unalienable right, due the highest level of legal scrutiny. If one cannot carry weapons, concealed or openly, “bear” has no meaning or application in the lives of citizens. Lower courts have ruled that concealed carry is the thrust of Heller, and the laws of most of the states surely support that interpretation.
You are just wrong both on your facts and your opinions. Prohibition of carrying handguns in grocery stores, mo or theaters, schools, government building and other crowded places is a reasonable restriction on the right to bear arms. Reasonable restrictions already exist in all the rights listed in the bill of rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and all the rest including the one in the second lamendment.
Dear Old Guy:
Ah. I see. We have a right to self-defense then in less-crowded places, but not in crowded places? Our lives have value based on calculations of persons per square foot?
No, you don’t see. I don’t think you ever wil.
I never objected to carrying rifles and shotguns in those places.l
“Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men
are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser
than a million men. Let’s play that over again too. Who
decides?” Robert Heinlein
Who decides what? I fon’t think I understand your question. I answered the question I thought you asked. So what is it you want to know?
The question asked is in a quotation, hence the question marks and attribution. As I read your comments I get the impression you have little faith in the average American and think “the legislature” needs to have much more control over their individual daily lives. The question would be who decides the members of “the legislature” if the American people can not be trusted to make good decisions? Some federal employees seem to think they should be the ones making that decision. I seem to remember someone else that wished to fundamentally transform America, who I also didn’t agree with. But I am an optimist and believe the majority of my fellow citizens are good people.
Old guy:
There are 2 reasons why Wyatt Earps requests were not even controversial at the time. First, those kinds of towns were mostly places where people got drunk. No one, then or now, has been OK with mixing the two, silly Hollywood notwithstanding. Second – again contrary to the TV, cowboys did not have an interest in firearms just because other cowboys did. They were mainly worried about Comanches, predators, and Desperados outside of places that had any law at all.. Actual records of violence in towns exist and show that there was very little.
The Heller decision covered several issues. At its core was the right of individual self defense in ones home. The DC law had effectively made that impossible – hence it violated the 2A.
And, here is a question — in the 2A, what does a “free State” refer to?
Old Guy,
What state(s) prohibit licensed individuals from carrying a gun in a grocery store “or other crowded places”? Private owners of any property can prohibit weapons in their establishments (at least they can in Texas), but that isn’t a 2nd Amendment issue, it is a right of the property owners to set rules.
Believe me, if it were a reasonable restriction to prohibit licensed possession of firearms in grocery stores or “crowded places” CA, IL, NJ, DC, etc. would have tried it.
You continue to think that people who carry guns are dangerous to innocent bystanders, despite there being no media coverage of the accidental shootings by licensed concealed carry individuals.
You should do your own research. I am not going to do it for you.
Old Guy: Dude, millions of people carry on a daily basis. The only case of which I am aware of this kind of lethal cop freakout is the one our host has described. That should guide how we frame this. I mean, who is the out-lier here? Who has some explaining to do?
The cop should be sentenced to life with out parole for murder. He should be taken out of society. I chose not to comment on that because I thought that was obvious.
I agree I switched the subject as a chance to talk about gun carry. In other words I hijacked the thread to another subject.
Old Guy,
You said “Being legal does not make it right. Or a good idea.” “But I can’t agree to let you make those decisions, the legislature gets to do that. And if they go to far the Judical Department will straighten things out.”.
The legislature, the judiciary and the Constitution permit concealed carry. Fortunately, it is you who does not get to make the rules.
The only ones who made judgement errors in this case, life ending errors, were the LVPD. Perhaps it is they who should not carry weapons.
To suggest that it was not a good idea for Scott to carry is very shallow. Perhaps it was not a good idea to shop at Costco. Perhaps it was not a good idea to live in LV. Perhaps it was not a good idea for Scott to have been fit and therefore intimidating, somehow, to Mosher.
Don’t overthink this. It’s not your strong suit.
People that walk around with concealed weapons are dangerous. Should be against the law. I am not overthinking anything. You are he one doing that. Sounds like you don’t have a strong suit. Or a working brain.
Old Guy,
I think you mean that CRIMINALS walking around with concealed weapons are dangerous. If licensed carriers are so dangerous, why don’t we hear about irresponsible shootings by them?
Old Guy,
Regarding the 2nd A.
Keep in mind that the establishment of a militia requires a level of stable organization in civil society.
Let us go back in our minds to early America. If gun ownership rights were understood to be limited to organized militia(s) that would mean that western expansion would look like this: Settlers would have to go into the wilderness to fight bears and heavily armed Red Indians WITH THEIR BARE HANDS until the area was stable and organized enough to institute a “militia”, at which times they would suddenly become entitled to keep and bear arms under the 2A.
Seriously? Would you like to go back in time and try to make that argument?
Pingback: The Erik Scott Case: Interviews And Updates | Stately McDaniel Manor