Confederate Yankee
October 01, 2010
Signs, Signs, Everywhere Signs!
What about that guy? You know, the guy at work who doesn’t have nearly enough to do? The supervisor or administrator who, when he comes to work every day, has no idea how he’ll fill eight hours, so he fills it dreaming up ways to make your work more difficult, costly and annoying?
Posted by: MikeM at
05:01 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
or that keeping the Bush tax cuts will cost them $700,000,000
Posted by: Rich at October 01, 2010 06:21 PM (siQqy)
2
Not many people know that there is a regulation which forbids Federal Civil Service employees from staring out the window before lunch. This is so they will have something to do in the afternoon.
Posted by: Tregonsee at October 01, 2010 06:27 PM (vq2sy)
3
Hello! dbbabdg interesting dbbabdg site!
Posted by: Pharmc851 at October 05, 2010 10:15 AM (udmhk)
4
Very nice site! cheap viagra
Posted by: Pharme419 at October 05, 2010 10:15 AM (a/JND)
5
Very nice site! [url=http://aieypxo.com/toxtts/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
Posted by: Pharma675 at October 05, 2010 10:15 AM (UovR6)
6
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://aieypxo.com/toxtts/4.html
Posted by: Pharma96 at October 05, 2010 10:16 AM (QCqks)
Posted by: Pharmb593 at October 05, 2010 10:16 AM (hxH1b)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama "It took time to free the slaves."
I agree.
Another 32 days ought to do it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:52 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yeah, the slave-master and his minions want to free the slaves from the eeeeeviiils of capitalism so they can enjoy the chains of his beloved communism.
Posted by: emdfl at October 01, 2010 10:16 AM (LQJvB)
2
No, Mr. President, it took a WAR and the formation of the Republican Party to free the slaves. If you and your ilk had their way, YOU would still be a slave!
Posted by: StanInTexas at October 01, 2010 10:29 AM (XO0X4)
3
If you and your ilk had their way, YOU would still be a slave!
No. He would never have been born. Obama is not the child of slave ancestors. Without the civil war, there would have been no "guess who's coming to dinner" moment in Obama's mother's life. She wouldn't have been getting knocked up by an African student just to show how unbiased she was.
Of course, there were some slaves who did not wait for a government beneficator to give them their freedom. They took it upon themselves. Some by earning it and some by taking it.
Posted by: Professor Hale at October 01, 2010 12:53 PM (m7EhJ)
4
I think that it could be argued that the slaves are still not free. Their are some people that seem to not understand the concept. Witness the crowds at the Superdome following Katrina. They were lost without someone the take care of them. You did not see this in Mississippi or for that matter following the almost equally distructive storm that occurred west of NO a few weeks after Katrina. In fact, many involved in that storm rejected Federal and government aid.
Posted by: david7134 at October 01, 2010 06:03 PM (U9Gbn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 30, 2010
Bob "Who are You?" Etheridge Sort of Pulls a Grayson
Thanks to his videotaped assault this summer Bob Etheridge is now known outside of North Carolina for the first time, despite a decades too-long career in the House of Representatives. That attention has given his Tea Party-supported challenger, nurse Renee Ellmers a real shot at taking the seat and sending the incumbent home.
Etheridge's biggest accomplishment of his career has been acting as a conservative Democrat while on the campaign trail, only to morph back into a liberal upon crossing the Potomac back into Washington, DC.
After getting shelled by Ellmers
in a new video for voting to cut a half trillion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, Etheridge has struck back by claiming Ellmers wants to impose a 23% tax raise on everyone.
This is a desperate lie, by a flailing big-spender. Ellmers supports converting from our current Byzantine tax code to a simpler model, something akin to the Fair Tax or Flat Tax model. Lorie Byrd, a fellow Tarheel who works for the Ellmers campign, referred to this deception as an "incredibly brazen lie."
It's also an incredibly hypocritical one, coming from a liberal who
voted to flee Washington without extending the Bush tax cuts, thereby automatically imposing an almost $1,500 tax increase on almost every family in his district.
Bob Etheridge is getting desperate. I wonder what fact (or person) he'll assault next.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:32 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I understand the impetus to bring up anything that may help the economy but these "New" TP candidates must learn to NOT get off the road of failed Demorat policies. Angle did it in Nevada and Paul did it in Ky. The red meat of failed obama policies is so tasty that to bring up anything else is to open the door to distortions. Look at what is going on with Whitman in Ca. She did what she was required to do and hired a maid through an agency that was supposed to vet her. It was never Whitman's job but now she is having to spend time talking about it. We don't need new ideas right now. Just promise to repeal Ocare and cut spending. The public does not want any social or ideological issues at this moment.
Posted by: inspectorudy at October 01, 2010 12:34 AM (KOOZL)
2
Boxin' Bob is my outgoing Congresscritter, and Renee Ellmers is my incoming one.
Posted by: Larry at October 01, 2010 06:31 AM (r4iP1)
3
That is the exact same amount (23% tax increase) that Blanche Lincoln is using in her adds against John Boozman here in Arkansas. Hmmmm...I guess its in the "Playbook for Desperate Incumbents."
Posted by: Razorgirl at October 01, 2010 02:27 PM (gHNO5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Experts Rip Obamacare's REC Foul-ups
Houston Neal, Director of Marketing for Software Advice, emailed me a link to an article on his company's medical blog, explaining what his company feels that electronic health records and the Regional Extension Centers (RECs) created to support them in Obamacare are a huge mistake.
The entity spearheading this effort, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC), is specifically charged with helping 100,000 priority primary care providers become "meaningful users" of EHRs in 24 months. Eight months have passed since the ONC began funding RECs, and we're skeptical that they will deliver.
Don’t get us wrong. We're big advocates of EHRs. We're glad to see such an energized EHR market. We're just skeptical that throwing money at the problem will lead to efficient and successful adoption of this important technology.
In our opinion, there are five fundamental flaws with RECs:
1. Doctors aren't moving as fast as the money is flowing
2. The market already delivers on what RECs promise
3. "Preferred vendor lists" limit choice and free markets
4. RECs won't get doctors to "meaningful use" fast enough
5. The REC model leads to under-staffed, ephemeral entities
The article goes on the detail each of the five flaws in detail.
Obamacare—like everything else MR. ESPN has touched—is a mindlessly expensive disaster that costs billions and makes things worse for all Americans, and serves primarily to strangle private business and grow government.
Let's get this thing repealed
STAT.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:06 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
EHRs are one of those things that is great as a concept, but often horrible in real world use. The devil is in the details, and it requires a total commitment from the practitioner otherwise it is all but guaranteed to fail.
No system is off-the-shelf perfect, and no existing practice can perfectly interface with one either. So implementation requires adaptation of the software and adaptation of the practice to the new systems(that's the element many are loathe to swallow.) As the Medical Blog noted, this is something that will require a very free market for innovation and later standardization.
In the broadest sense EHR is much like facsimile machines, or other labor saving technologies - they are only of real practical and financial benefit once most everyone is using them. Getting the majority of potential users over the hump is essential, but needs to be done in a palatable manner.
By attempting to force widespread adoption in this manner the implementations are practically doomed to fail. The greatest downside will be the creation of a large class of practitioners who are thus embittered to the entire concept. It is possible that this core of negativity will have the net of effect of delaying widespread acceptance and use longer than might have happened otherwise.
Posted by: ThomasD at September 30, 2010 09:51 PM (21H5U)
2
EHRs are a massive invasion in the personal space by government agents.
Everyone's medical history (all of it, every prescription, procedure, visit to your doctors) will be available to government agencies across the board, crosslinked to medical and tax records, employment records, etc. etc.
Still think it's a good idea? Now try having all that information available to a government flunky who has to decide if you're to be allowed treatment for say cancer.
You're 50, have a decent job which pays the government $30.000 a year in taxes, but the treatment will cost $200.000.
The flunky has a guideline to only allow treatment if the cost is recovered by incoming taxes from the patient in under 5 years. You're denied treatment, offered assisted suicide instead.
Posted by: JTW at October 01, 2010 03:20 AM (jMRqb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Answer the Call
Nancy Pelosi's Democratic Congress has done what everyone has expected, tucking its tail between its legs and fleeing Washington to avoid voting on an extension to the so-called Bush tax cuts. Tactically, the move made sense.
Incredibly unpopular, viewed as arrogant, incompetent, and elitist, the evasive exodus gave Democratic incumbents hemorrhaging votes an opportunity to run to their home districts and use their expansive campaign war chests to try to buy another term in office. Granted another two years, they could dedicate their time to pissing away America's future for the sake of their dream of a progressive socialist United States.
Here in my home state of North Carolina I'm watching Bob "Who Are you?" Etheridge and Pelosi "Yes man" David Price attempt to convince Tarheels that they are moderates and centrists, despite voting records that prove otherwise. Like Price and Etheridge, many other Democrats in the would-be ruling party are similarly watching their support falling away, their time-worn, divisive cries of racism and class warfare falling on deaf ears in communities sharing the misery of crippling national debt and feeling quite Taxed Enough Already.
The Republican Party itself is little better than the Democrats, having their own turns in power and likewise abusing the public trust when they controlled Congress. Frankly, all incumbents need to be thrown out, across the board. In the wake of the purge this nation needs, new more fiscally responsible parties need to be reforged on both sides, but that is a battle to be fought after November 2.
Or, we can continue to re-elect those who fail to understand the real world and allow ourselves to be victimized by their incompetence, and still face the unpleasant task of rebuilding once the whole tottering edifice collapses from its own impossible bulk.
Our legislators in Washington can't fulfill their most basic duties, cannot honor the oaths they swore, and view us as something less than equals in their quest for power. November must lead to a sea change in American politics, or it will be a precursor to an eventual collapse.
Which eventuality is more likely? That depends entirely on how seriously you take your responsibility as an informed voter and American patriot, and whether or not you will continue to support the very thieves robbing our children blind.
Volunteer.
Vote.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:59 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
...don't know why we just don't tar and feather the whole lot of them, and be done with it. I always thought tar and feathering was a fine, old, American tradition. Given the seriousness of the situation, no sir, I do not jest.
Pissed in Idaho
Posted by: Michael Noble at September 30, 2010 04:22 PM (RRlwm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Enjoy Your Nanny State
A $27.5 million mandate to change the font on street signs in New York.
The Federal Highway Administration is behind this, providing yet more evidence that branches of our nation's bloated bureaucracy need more than pruning; they need to be lopped off entirely at the trunk.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:38 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It might be interesting to see who owns the copyright & trademark on that ClearView font. Want to bet it's some Obama crony.
Posted by: Jerry in Detroit at September 30, 2010 05:26 PM (BfKQ/)
2
Meh. This is not the hill I want to die on. This rule went into effect in 2003 (pre-Obama), municipalities have until 2018 to replace all signs. Typical service life of a street sign is approximately 10 years, so basically all the regulation really affects is that replacement signs are upper & lower case instead of all caps.
As far as the font goes, studies have demonstrated that sans serif fonts (such as Arial) are more legible that a serif font (such as Times New Roman.) There's a reason eye charts don't use serifs!
I haven't seen the regulation, but from what I do know about Federal regulations, proprietary specifications are discouraged and require a special exemption. More likely the regulation specifies a "sans serif font, such as Clearview, Helvetica or Arial."
Posted by: SicSemperTyrannus at October 01, 2010 10:08 AM (y67bA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 29, 2010
As Expected, Kangaroo Inquest Clears Metro Cops That Killed Erik Scott
It was always a foregone conclusion that the coroner's inquest would exonerate the three Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers that fired seven bullets into Erik Scott just outside the crowded doorway of an area Costco. The inquest process has cleared officers involved in a shooting since the days of disco, in more than 200 total incidents. In a process that allows law enforcement officials and the prosecution to shape the testimony and witness list without possibility of cross-examination, it is quite possible for Metro officers to literally get away with murder... or at least manslaughter.
And so last nights verdict came as no surprise:
the officers were found justified.
Of course, we're still left with more questions unanswered than answered by the broken system championed by Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie, who is up for reelection this year.
The Scott family says they plan to file a Civil case against Costco and the Metro Police over Erik Scott's death. Under cross-examination we may finally get some of the many missing answers in this disturbing case.
My co-blogger Mike McDaniel, who has written a brilliant series of posts analyzing the case thus far, is meticulously researching the timing of the 911 tape, and will be posting another review of the evidence in this case soon that I promise you won't want to miss.
The coroner's inquest is over. Now the investigation into the death of Erik Scott can really begin.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:28 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Here's a thought exercise for the curious. According to the 911 tape, the sequence of events was as follows: 14:16 Mosher issues his first command. Erik is walking past him with his back to Mosher. 14:18 Mosher fires two shots. The commands Mosher issued (heard on the 911 tape, not based on witness testimony which wildly varied) were as follows: "Put your hands where I see them! Drop it! Get on the ground! Get on the ground!"
Now get three people together; one to be Erik, one to be Mosher and one to be a timer. Have Erik walk past Mosher from behind him. Have the timer hit the stopwatch as Mosher issues his first command. Have Mosher issue the exact same commands. Have Erik turn toward Mosher immediately. Have the timer loudly yell "STOP!" when two seconds is reached. Then ask yourself, what chance of survival did Erik have?
Posted by: Paul Schmehl at September 29, 2010 10:10 PM (D13W4)
2
Manslaughter, my ass. He was murdered. The criminals who murdered him deserve to die.
Posted by: ccoffer at September 30, 2010 12:23 PM (/wrlq)
3
I hope the family is quick enough to get a court order making sure that the city doesn't destroy any of the records. I also hope that they get a chance to sue each of the officers severally. Their actions would seem to me to be so agregious that they can be separated out, or that the city might just drop them.
Posted by: Timothyjp at September 30, 2010 03:10 PM (G5+tV)
4
There will not be records available for review? They have ways of disappearing. The family needs to file a Federal law suit for violation of Erik's civil rights! NOW!!!!!
Clark county officials will most likely bill the family for the ammo that was expended to kill Erik.
Posted by: 1Fearless1 at September 30, 2010 09:00 PM (DzfVY)
5
Check out the pictures of Mosher. Something around 300 lbs, more chins than the Peking phonebook, the big but now flabby arms of a guy who used to lift a lot, and stopped.
First, I guess Metro has no physical fitness standards. If you can lift the donut, you're good.
Second, why was he involved in two shootings? Maybe he has bad luck. Maybe he has bad judgment. But just maybe he has a bad temper. And if he does, it may not be all natural.
You see, he sure looks like a lot of juicers -- anabolic steroid users -- that I've seen. On the other hand, I can't tell from the pictures, but his face doesn't seem to have had the acne ravaging that juicers often experience.
But Mr Scott should seek Mosher's medical records in discovery. No, the 'roids won't be in there -- gym rats don't get prescriptions for that stuff. But at his age, if he's had ED prescriptions, well, that's another side-effect of the Get Big To Be Baaad program that an unfortunately large minority of cops are on. I'd wager that the police did not drug-test any of the cops involved in this shooting. If they thought their guys were clean, they would have done that as part of their PR offensive... that they didn't do it means that they know that have a "metabolites issue" shall we say.
Then again, maybe he's just a donut-fueled prediabetic bag of suet who hasn't got the judgment to be be toting a badge. Occam's razor and all.
Posted by: Dr. Weightroom at September 30, 2010 11:57 PM (rIrvx)
6
Dr. W, not only was he involved in another shooting, the previous incident was also a fatal shooting.
Food for thought.
Posted by: Casey at October 01, 2010 12:36 AM (fwjyy)
7
Firing too quickly is just as likely to be from fear as from a bad temper. Also a lack of confidence in their own judgement to assess the situation accurately. The bad-tempered, bad-a$$ folks I've known tend to like the beatdowns as they're taking suspects into custody more than shooting.
Posted by: styrgwillidar at October 01, 2010 11:29 AM (NmR1a)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What if Stuxnet is Just the Start?
I read a fascinating article early this morning about about the Stuxnet worm, which most computer security experts seem to believe is the first targeted, militarized computer weapon. While capable of invading other systems, it seems purpose-designed to exploit the specific weaknesses of Iran's industrial and military computer infrastructure. Even more amazing? Like organic organisms, it apparently turns violent when attacked.
The impression debkafile sources gained Wednesday, Sept. 29 from talking to European computer experts approached for aid was that the Iranians are getting desperate. Not only have their own attempts to defeat the invading worm failed, but they made matters worse: The malworm became more aggressive and returned to the attack on parts of the systems damaged in the initial attack.
One expert said: "The Iranians have been forced to realize that they would be better off not 'irritating' the invader because it hits back with a bigger punch."
As Stuxnet continues to sink its hooks into Iran's infrastructure, it is apparently sending data back to its creators...whoever that may be. That brings about what I feel is the next logical question: What is Stuxnet isn't itself the weapon, but the scout?
The oldest and best military advice is to scout your enemy extensively, learn the disposition of their forces, and then hit them with overwhelming force where least expected.
What if stuxnet is just the scout, designed to probe Iran's network, raise their alarms, and provide feedback on their response so that a real and even more powerful weaponized virus can knock Iran catastrophically with the press of a button?
That, my friends, is the ultimate power and leverage. If stuxnet is merely the messenger—what comes next is nothing less than the binary version of Death itself.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:31 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hard to believe it takes a state of the art technology attack to knock a country firmly entrenched in the stone age.
Posted by: TexasRainmaker at September 29, 2010 10:42 AM (FSLpr)
Posted by: Chris Short at September 29, 2010 10:46 AM (/aNCP)
3
Hmm? Who would have figured? Chilling analysis.
Thier reactor is loaded and ready for ops but if they try and start it it will just go China syndrom. Guess it will be a while before they get it up and running. Good thing.
Posted by: ron at September 29, 2010 10:59 AM (ajeYg)
4
So... you're saying this is sort of like the "Exciter" missions the Air Force flew (flys?) where the purpose was to make the potential enemy forces light up their air defenses.... so that the Rivet Joint circling off the coast could record everything?
Interesting theory.
Posted by: Foamer at September 29, 2010 12:28 PM (zGCLY)
5
Actually, a lot of people believe that the first known attack was on the Iraqi air defenses in 1991, that apparently worm was hard wired into HP printer residing on the PCs that interfaced with the air defense network.
Posted by: Phelps at September 29, 2010 06:43 PM (qinBt)
6
I wouldn't believe anything posted at DEBKA. That site has a very low reliability rating.
Even if the linked article is correct, this whole matter of the Stuxnet worm is making less and less sense as it goes along. The way to remove a virus, any virus, is simple:
1) isolate the infected machine
2) boot from a clean system CD
3) run a remover/protector program like Malwarebytes.
I have trouble believing that the Iranians have been so lax about cybersecurity that they can't do this. Or that the Stuxnet worm is so smart there's no way to remove it. Or that they can't restore from clean system backups or system images. I think there's a lot more going on here than anyone has yet said.
Posted by: wolfwalker at September 29, 2010 07:37 PM (rMVPA)
7
Wolfwalker,
It's a bit more complex than that when you're dealing with a massive - and massively infected network, especially if you're not sure when the infection occurred.
What if the infection occurred prior to the oldest backup in the sequence? No one keeps backups for more than a month or three - or even if they did, that's a MASSIVE loss of time and effort; all the work of MONTHS is G O N E.
The amount of time and effort involved to wipe and restore each individual machine is also going to be huge. Especially if you're going to try to save some or all of the data on each machine - and ensure that your backups don't become infected.
If they haven't been able to block the worm from infecting computers on the 'Net (or even if there's a risk - say it's polymorphic), you have to keep it off the 'Net until ALL the 'net is clean - or rebuild your network one machine at a time, again a massive effort and loss of time.
Either way, it looks like they're pretty well screwed. Especially if say, part of the worm's payload was simply to push various industrial components (e.g. valves, pipes, other control systems) past tolerance, requiring inspection or replacement. That's an awful lot of piping and other components buried in an awful lot of concrete.
And an awful lot of infected components outside of just the computers that are carriers of the virus. Assuming there's only one.
I have a feeling this thing shouldn't have been named Stuxnet but Ebolanet.
Orion
Posted by: Orion at September 29, 2010 09:35 PM (UnCdA)
8
I wonder if this virus speaks Hebrew.
Posted by: Stan at September 29, 2010 10:52 PM (mbaZk)
9
And what if the stuxnet virus was aided by a sleeper IT agent, or three, buried deep within Iranian network services? Iran is a Persian country; the Mullahs are not universally loved.
The thought of someone letting all the minks "go free" in and among several key networks, makes me shudder(with delight, since I love the target!)
Posted by: Earl T at September 29, 2010 11:12 PM (QPZAf)
10
Well,
"I have trouble believing that the Iranians have been so lax about cybersecurity that they can't do this. Or that the Stuxnet worm is so smart there's no way to remove it. Or that they can't restore from clean system backups or system images. I think there's a lot more going on here than anyone has yet said. "
All I can say is when Saudi Bdes visit, we upload nothing, attach no stick, and receive no CDs. Their machines are infected with any and all malware known to mankind.
Just remember, to a 3rd world country, this is still 'magic'.
Posted by: Mike at September 30, 2010 12:49 AM (ezr3B)
11
And remember this thing apparently has infected not just PCs but through those has taken root in the PLSs that control things like centrifuges in Iran's enrichment plants.
Can't simply reboot those thing.
It wouldn't in fact surprise me at all if those were the origin of the attack, and were delivered from the factory with the trojan already installed in both themselves and their control software, in which care reinstalling from the original installation package would have no effect whatsoever.
Another theory I've been playing with is that this is an Iranian worm aimed at the USA or other western countries that somehow got out of control during testing (or was deliberately launched into their own systems in order to be able to blame Israel or the US, because everyone knows Iran is too backwards to make something like that, right?).
Posted by: JTW at September 30, 2010 04:34 AM (hrLyN)
12
PLC's use Windows? Last I heard, even the Stuxnet worm/virus was a Windows program that couldn't run on anything else.
[brief interlude to look at Wikipedia's article on Stuxnet]
[blink] Wow. Okay, if the wikipedia article is right, this thing is a damnsight smarter than I thought. Infecting Windows machines and then rewriting EEPROM in attached PLCs? That would require proprietary system information, the kind that only the company should have.
This passage also leaped out at me:
'Once inside the system it uses the default passwords to command the software.[3] Siemens however advises against changing the default passwords because it "could impact plant operations".'
As security holes go, that one's big enough to drive a starship through. Something really stinks now -- that bit makes it look more and more like a coordinated plan among multiple entities. What self-respecting programmer would write a security system that contains such an obvious hole?
Posted by: wolfwalker at September 30, 2010 07:40 AM (rMVPA)
13
wolfwalker, if you've worked in IT very long, odds are you've known plenty of people who write software with holes like that.
Posted by: Dr. Horrible at October 02, 2010 03:21 PM (iOMcL)
14
Uh, you'd definitely want to think that the people writing software for nuclear power plants would be able to get their act together to code a functioning password system. That bit of "advice" from Siemens is bizarre to say the least. What happens if you change the password? Nuclear meltdown? What idiot designed that?
Posted by: JS at October 02, 2010 04:56 PM (i6CbJ)
15
What self-respecting programmer would write a security system that contains such an obvious hole?
One looking to sell it to imbeciles.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 02, 2010 09:18 PM (L+zEi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 28, 2010
Get Your Own Pet Dan
But remember kids....love your pets, don't love your pets.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:02 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Absolute. Moral. Authority.
Maureen Dowd said Cindy Sheehan had it. Her allies in the MSM—on every channel and in print—hung on the ditchbank disciple's every deranged word as she railed against the Iraq War (a war her son chose to fight, in an army he joined of his own free will).
Now Saint Cindy of Crawford isn't so beloved. I wonder if it is because the useful idiot isn't so useful anymore. Or is it because those who embraced her and championed her are now embarrassed by what their fawning praise of a madwoman says about them.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:51 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I would suggest they're ignoring her because she's no longer useful.
Considering how they used, abused and dumped her when inconvenient, I would suggest they have no capacity for shame for what they did to that poor woman.
Posted by: Veeshir at September 28, 2010 02:55 PM (FdWbq)
2
She stopped being useful after Election Day 2008. She was the last person to see it coming, and still can't grasp that her erstwhile best pals don't want to talk with her, let alone be seen with her.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at October 02, 2010 05:58 AM (QQ9sc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
BREAKING: Left-Wing Panel Finds All Woes Originate on Right
With the economy continuing to stagger and job creation not moving quickly, "working people are justifiably angry and frustrated" as they approach the Nov. 2 elections, says AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.
Trumka and Working America Executive Director Karen Nussbaum, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, Eric Alterman, journalist and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and moderator Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of the Nation, led a panel discussion—Which Way for the Working Class? Elections 2010 and Beyond—Friday afternoon in New York City.
Which way for the working class?
The direction coming from this group is obvious: left, and then down.
They also discovered that Republicans are uniformly rich and evil, that Tea Partiers molest children before cannibalizing them, and that Barack Obama can cure lupus
with his mind. Make sure that you read the entire article at the link. You'll love Trumka's parting shot:
we need to fundamentally restructure our economy and re-establish popular control over the private corporations which have distorted our economy and hijacked our government. That’s a long-term job, but one we should start now.
Yes, kids... these people are, by definition, socialists.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:45 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Trumka wants to "re-establish" popular control over private corporations. RE-ESTABLISH, like in the way things use to be? When was that Mr. Trmka? Where is this idiot coming from?
I live in Venezuela and I wish Trumka's so called working class could spend some time down here and see first hand what socialism about and what it does to an economy. Unfortunately they've been conditioned for so long by our ( I hate this word )"progressive" politicians, media and school system, that I fear there is no hope. But giving up hope won't get us where we need to go. We conservatives must find a better way to package and sell our ideas.
I'm a first time visitor to Confederate Yankee but I will definitely be back.
Posted by: Jim at September 28, 2010 07:55 PM (SEySS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 27, 2010
The Erik Scott Shooting: Update 3.2
The next installment of this series, Update 4, which will analyze the 9-11 transcript presented at the Coroner’s Inquest (a visit to regarding that inquest is worth your time) and a partial radio transcript will be posted later this week, but so many commenters have raised excellent questions, as they so often do, that answering those questions may serve to clarify portions of the earlier updates and to further enlighten future updates. Consider this post Update 3.2.
Posted by: MikeM at
06:36 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
From this:
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13224120/coroners-inquest-day-5
It says:
"Late Monday, Metro homicide detective Peter Calos took the stand to talk about the firearms Scott was carrying the day of the shooting. Det. Calos showed the jury Scott's Kimber .45 that was found at the scene of the shooting. Calos also showed the Ruger .380 handgun found in Scott's pocket as he was being transported to the hospital."
Posted by: Skip at September 27, 2010 09:12 PM (qWvBE)
2
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/27/erik-scott-day5/
In the ambulance, he found a small handgun in Scott’s right pocket and some ammunition clips in his left pocket, Thorpe said. Those items were immediately given to the police officer who accompanied them in the ambulance.
Posted by: Kevin at September 27, 2010 11:20 PM (oQnl3)
3
Regarding the high hit rate - You also notice the delay in the shots on the tape. It's not usually difficult to shoot a person laying prone and immobile several feet in front of you when you take an extra second to aim. It's kind of difficult to see how else he could have been shot unless he was prone.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/coroners-inquest-erik-scott/
12:25 p.m.
Dr. Alane Olson, a medical examiner at the Clark County Coroner's office...
She said five of the shots entered his back and two entered the front of his body. One of the bullets entered his buttocks area, traveled up through his bowels and lodged in his chest.
Posted by: Kevin at September 27, 2010 11:34 PM (oQnl3)
4
"She said five of the shots entered his back and two entered the front of his body."
Sounds like he was shot from the front twice, went down, and was shot 5 times more in the back while on the ground and likely incapacitated.
Posted by: JTW at September 28, 2010 03:37 AM (jMRqb)
5
I'm a former LEO and feel some qualification to speak to the issue.
I believe Costco is at fault for enforcing an unpublished policy. The Costco caller failed to mention this to the dispatcher nor did the dispatcher ask. Costco employees even designated Mr. Scott for the police.
The dispatcher is at fault for failing to ask if caller has a published concealed weapons sign and if the subject claimed to have a CCW.
The performance of the three officers would be comedic were it not for the consequences. In the initial moments of the encounter, the conflicting commands indicates a profound lack of appropriate training and policy. In other words, when they encountered Mr. Scott, no one was in control giving orders nor did they have a standardized response for such orders. It would also appear the officers were lacking in knowledge of the laws they were sworn to uphold.
I'm sorry but Mr. Scott contributed to this. The proper response in the face of conflicting commands would be to stand still until the hysteria dies down then ask whom is in charge and suggest one officer take charge of his weapons from behind. The point is to de-escalate the situation to point where people are talking rather than shouting.
Posted by: Jerry in Detroit at September 28, 2010 08:54 AM (BfKQ/)
6
Jerry -
Based on the information so far, Scott was dead no matter what he did. Stand still; drop the gun; get on the ground. No matter which of these three conflicting commands he tried to obey, he was up for grabs by the other two.
LV police have a rich history of shooting people who weren't threats and then getting off.
And the fact that ALL of the available video from this latest episode has disappeared proves the premise.
Moral to this story? As obumble said, "Stay out of Las Vagas".
Posted by: emdfl at September 28, 2010 09:18 AM (7Z66S)
7
I am a 20 year Las Vegas resident.I do not want an officer on my police force that cannot identify a holstered weapon from a drawn firearm. Officer Mosher also lied on the stand about how the gun in this holster is capable of being fired.There are no trigger holes on this holster,as he stated,"I own the same holster.For a revolver.It can be fired in the holster." These officers created a situation that threatened everyone in that foyers life.There were no reports of shots fired, branishing, or threatening with that weapon.God forbid that my teenage children answer a cell phone while recieveing a ticket or speaking with an Officer like this one.I do not believe all Metro Officers are this incompitent.There is no excuse for the way in which this was handled.
Posted by: JohnH at September 28, 2010 02:12 PM (uaicc)
8
To the author. Why, if these officers are suspect until the completion of this inquest,are they allowed to still carry their firearms?
Posted by: JohnH at September 28, 2010 02:28 PM (uaicc)
9
"Scott's postmortem blood test showed high levels of the painkiller morphine and the anti-anxiety drug Xanax. Calos testified that though Scott had a concealed-weapons permit, carrying a firearm while under the influence of drugs is a felony."
"Scott's wallet contained registration cards for seven guns, including the two he carried, and his concealed-weapon permit listing four guns, including the Kimber, he said.
The permit did not list a Ruger, but it did include a similar Keltec .380-caliber."
It should also be pointed out that one of pro-Scott witnesses was also a professional liar, a public defender, a welfare lawyer who steals money from taxpayers.
"Shopper Bettie Lou Travis, a senior citizen with a shock of white hair, said she saw Scott pull something from his side.
'Oh my gosh, he's going to pull a gun,' she recalled thinking after seeing him raise the weapon toward an officer."
So, did Bettie Travis contribute to someone that causes you to discount her statement? Is Bettie Travis a liar?
It appears that you and Erik Scott are setting the basis for the end of CCW in this country. Gun advocates used to brag that CCW holders were the most law abiding people, but now you are defending a drug using felon.
You will rue this day when real gun rights advocates and the public start to lose their rights due to the crazed actions of Erik Scott and his defenders.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/costco-shopper-opens-monday-inquest-testimony-103870684.html
She ducked after hearing gunfire.
Posted by: Federale at September 28, 2010 04:32 PM (JS6HU)
10
I have not heard any testimony of a crazed Mr. Scott in the store. I have watched every minute of this inquest. All information was from a third party. Officers never had eyes on knowledge of what he was doing. Mosher is the one who initiated the code red.He was in fact so crazed that he walked right by Mosher.There was no serial numbers on the CCW permit.It was originally miss identified by the detective displaying the weapon.His levels of drugs are after the fact,it was ALLEGED at the time of the shooting.I also happen to own many registered firearms and support 2nd amendment rights and believe in firearms ownership.
Posted by: JohnH at September 28, 2010 05:40 PM (uaicc)
11
I'm the poster referencing subject/officer interaction times. My point was that it is unreasonable to assume an officer can observe a subject drawing an object from their waistband, orient themselves as to what exactly it is, make a decision as to whether they should fire or not, and actually fire in the time it takes a subject- if they actually are drawing a weapon- to fire.
From the referenced website, untrained students unfamiliar with firearms were able to draw and fire from a waistband at an average of .23 seconds and as fast as .09 seconds(admittedly this is with their hand already at waist level) with an officer reaction time to take an unsighted shot at 15 feet at .64 seconds. For all those who wonder how an officer could possibly shoot someone drawing a holstered weapon, or a wallet- that's why. It happens that fast- if the subject is actually pulling a weapon with the intention to fire, it is almost impossible for an officer to delay to confirm exactly what is being drawn in time to stop it. Police are not perfect.
I am not trying to justify what the police did- but I am trying to point out the fractions of a second in which these things occur.
Similarly, the website has articles showing how long it takes to stop shooting. Officers directed to start firing when a light comes on and cease when it goes off (simulating shooting until a threat stops) were shown to take ~.5 second. From the study, " ...if the officer were reacting as quickly as he could to pull that trigger, there is not a human being on the face of the earth that could react quickly enough to interrupt the trigger pull motion."
Now, this is an officer simply reacting to a light turning off, not trying to protect their own or others lives. Given the adrenaline and difficulty in discerning a subjects actions- turning to run or turning to engage others? Falling from being hit or diving to avoid cover?
Most of this may be irrelevant to this particular incident but I feel it's worth mentioning due to the many generalizations being made which don't acount for the speed involved in many shootings. Additionally, this seemed to be a very static event vice a dynamic event where subject and officer are both moving.
Posted by: styrgwillidar at September 28, 2010 06:37 PM (xGZ+b)
12
My experience teaches me that few officers will risk not only their reputations but their careers and potentially, their freedom, when so little is at stake.
The fatal flaw in this reasoning is that the testiliars do not believe that there is any actual risk of prosecution. They expect the thin blue line to protect them.
Posted by: Phelps at September 28, 2010 07:04 PM (o/6if)
13
Another great article! Thank you for taking the time to analyze and comment on this case. May God bless you for your efforts to educate the public and hopefully save lives in the future without compromising our Constitutional rights.
Posted by: DisabledVeteran at September 28, 2010 07:37 PM (C9aYf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Witness in Scott Case May be Donor to D.A.
It is quite possible that the man in question is another Christopher Villareale entirely, or that the man who donated $500 to the District Attorney's re-election warchest just happened to be an eyewitness to Erik Scott's shooting at the hands of Las Vegas police.
If the latter, disclosure seems to be the order of the day, considering the high-profile and controversial nature of the coroner's inquest.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:57 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
My One-and-Only Christine O'Donnell Post
It seems everyone else in the political blogosphere has turned out their opinion of the Delaware Republican Senate Primary, and is now furiously focusing the race purely upon the perceived merits or demerits of the Republican primary winner, Christine O'Donnell.
The primary race itself was something of a litmus test, pitting O'Donnell, who professes to be a conservative, against well-known and generally popular moderate Republican Mike Castle. Reform-minded Tea Party purists gravitated to O'Donnell. Many others embraced polling data that suggested the moderate Castle would win in a walk over Chris Coons, the nearly sacrificial Democratic candidate.
The in-fighting on the right was intense as bloggers and pundits chose up sides, pulling readers this way and that with both well-reasoned and occasionally absurdly emotional arguments for and against their preferred candidate.
In the end, Delaware's voters made the decision to risk a near lock of a Republican pick-up (Castle) in favor of a much more risky, but theoretically more ideologically pure conservative (O'Donnell).
I'll respect the decision of Delaware's Republican primary voters. They made the choice to give up an easy victory with a perceived RINO in favor of a much tougher battle with an untested, under-vetted, and inexperienced conservative option. That takes both guts and faith, and considering the nation's growing anti-establishment movement, it could be a bet that pays off.
Now, would I have voted for Christine O'Donnell if I was a Republican Primary voter? Honestly, I don't think that I would have.
O'Donnell may end up winning the general election against Chris Coons and go on to be a successful conservative senator, but I don't see that as being a likely outcome. For starters, I rather suspect that the demographics and voting history of Delaware strongly favors Coons. It will be a surprise to me if O'Donnell beats him, but then, few gave her a chance of making it this far.
But even if she wins, I don't think O'Donnell would turn out to be a "Tea Party senator." I suspect this will come as a shock to many of her new supporters.
Everything in the candidate's personal biography paints the portrait of committed social conservative, but I see nothing in Christine O'Donnell's personal or professional biography to suggest that she is any better at all than Mike Castle on fiscal matters. As a matter of recorded history, her personal finances are a study of incompetence, blame-shifting, ethically questionable and fiscally irresponsible decisions.
So if I was a Delaware Tea Partier, Republican, Independent, or moderate Democrat, I would have an interesting choice to make in November. Do I hold my nose and chose the lightweight and apparently vindictive socialist in Chris Coons, ensuring that Senate Democrats have an assured "yes" vote for every big government entitlement scheme and tax increase they can dream up? Or do I chose the eccentric born-again virgin who can't seem to balance a checkbook or hold a job of her own? Frankly, I could understand why some Delaware votes might chose to stay home November 2nd, or at least skip over the Senate race.
From where I sit, however, it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils, if only to avoid the greater evil gaining power. The last thing Delaware needs is another big government liberal like Chris Coons to join his economy-wrecking fellow Democrats in the Senate.
Christine O'Donnell should be your vote for Senator from Delaware, if only as a preventative measure.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:47 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Despite the possibility that Odonnell is not as conservative as she appears and that she may lose the general election, there really was nothing to lose in supporting here.
Coons = Castle legislatively. No substantive difference. Ont he other hand, any opportunity to pry a career politician's ass out of his seat should not be overlooked, even if the candidate is less than satisfying. Not so much a "lesser of two evils" approach but a direct approach to thwart the evil that you know in favor of at least a chance of something better. If Odonell goes bad, there is always the chance to try someone new in 2012. No election is permanent and politicians need to learn that.
Posted by: Professor Hale at September 27, 2010 12:44 PM (PDTch)
2
I ALWAYS vote against the "lesser of two evils," As I cannot remember a candidate who I ever agreed with completely!
Posted by: cas at October 01, 2010 07:03 PM (YSiwU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 26, 2010
If It's Rampant Voter Fraud...
...it must be Democrats. And you can smell it all the way to the Obama Administration.
Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Steve Caddle, who also works for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.
Caddle told local newspapers that there "had been mistakes made," and he said he had fired 30 workers for filing defective voter registration applications. He could not be reached for this article.
The SEIU are, of course, Obama's brownshirts, and have specialized in intimidation and corruption. Their leader, Andy Stern, was Obama's top visitor to the White House.
Stern resigned from SEIU several months ago. Does anyone know if he's allowed to play with matches?
And yes, that is the same Houston district where the fraud is so rampant. Dead and fraudulent Democratic voters can be expected to turn out in droves November 2nd, across the country.
The question is whether enough real voters who are tired of these games turn out to assure that this fraud goes for naught. As the saying goes, "if it ain't close, they can't cheat."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:47 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
One thing -- how many registrations any person has is meaningless. You can only vote once. So I want you to show me how the boogey man is going to come up with thousands of BODIES who are willing to risk arrest to try to vote more than once. This whole thing is rightwing fairytale that only the braindead base buy into. I work as a polling place volunteer and in 20 years we have never had a documented case of voter fraud.
Posted by: Jeff at September 26, 2010 10:32 AM (aXUBK)
2
You are correct, it doesn't matter how many registrations one person has, it's how many people take advantage of those registrations, since many localities don't require positive identification. Also, flooding the offices with thousands of bogus forms overwhelms the system, causing the workers to approve applications without proper scrutiny due to time constraints, simple,ingenious and proven effective
Posted by: Paul B at September 26, 2010 10:53 AM (z7jOS)
3
Jeff, do you live in Houston? Do you live in Texas? Oh, I see.
Posted by: Fred Beloit at September 26, 2010 11:54 AM (N+EfZ)
4
Fred, I live in Houston, Texas. I have for my entire adult life.
The problem with Harris County is that the Republicans who have been in charge of voter registration (Paul Bettencourt and Leo Vasquez) slow walk registrations -- they have been sued over it twice -- the first suit was settled and required the office to live up to its duties -- it hasn't, hence the second suit -- and that those Republicans have been sharing voter registration information with the county Republican party, but not the county Democratic party.
This is not about SEIU. It's about Republicans making a last stand, as they will lose this office in November. If you doubt that prediction, just look at the GOP's candidate for the race.
Posted by: Michelle at September 26, 2010 12:08 PM (lpBl3)
5
Michelle:
So the thousands of fraudulent registrations by a liberal group are because of the GOP stalling voter registrations?
Wow. I'm amazed. I guess logic escapes you.
Posted by: tm at September 26, 2010 12:27 PM (ZlXVq)
6
tm -- that's funny -- "fraudulent" registrations? ha ha.
The GOP responsible for voter registration slow walks all registrations. Of course they are going to bellyache about all of the "thousands" of registrations submitted. Vasquez is whining about having to do his job.
I guess that logical to you
Posted by: Michelle at September 26, 2010 12:44 PM (lpBl3)
7
Having worked with voter registration, and been involved in several instances of multiple voter registration, some need to be informed that a person that registers under 10 different names and addresses can vote 10 times.
Posted by: dahni at September 26, 2010 10:44 PM (d2TFs)
8
Michelle,
one more time please...
What does the Republican Party have to do with registering illegal aliens to vote?
What does Sears and Roebuck have to do with registering illegal aliens to vote?
What does vanilla ice cream have to do with registering illegal aliens to vote?
What does anything have anything to do with registering illegal aliens to vote except the fact that Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Steve Caddle, who also works for the SEIU, decided to do it?
Posted by: Adriane at September 26, 2010 11:54 PM (+NfQM)
9
I only hope that stories like this eventually results in a lashback which cleans up voter registration and meaningful voter ID legislation. In the meantime: "If it's not close, they can't cheat"
Posted by: Formerly known as Skeptic at September 27, 2010 02:54 PM (91XRk)
10
yah, the GOP is responsible for voter registration delays when Dems submit hundreds of thousands of fraudulent registration cards in a town with only a few thousands inhabitants.
Perfectly logical.
Posted by: JTW at September 28, 2010 03:41 AM (jMRqb)
11
How does someone vote twice? By being registered in more than one precinct, like the situation... in Houston.
Posted by: Phelps at September 28, 2010 06:59 PM (o/6if)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Erik Scott Shooting: Update 3
Since the second update, many interesting developments have come to light and many questions have been answered, or at least, more informed suppositions can reasonably be made. However, complete and accurate original source videos and audio and transcripts are still not available, making accurate analysis difficult. Sadly, far too many of the details remain unknown, and perhaps, purposely or even criminally so. In update four of this series, I’ll get into more specific analysis of an audio/transcript of the initial 9-11 call from Costco security employee Shai (pronounced “Shay”) Lierley to a metro dispatcher, and will try to synchronize a partial transcript of police radio traffic to that 9-11 call to produce a more complete picture of events. This update, the third, will deal primarily with analysis of Inquest testimony and related issues.
Posted by: MikeM at
12:19 AM
| Comments (67)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Lawyers on all sides are supposed to seek justice above all, but some defense attorneys are predisposed to believe that the police are dim witted perjurers and brutalizing racists, and feeling the system thereby stacked against themselves and their clients, sometimes cut corners to try to even the playing field that they perceive is tilted in the prosecution’s favor.
I would consider them much more frivolous if they didn't have, what's it called, history on their side. I don't know how long you have been out of this line of work, but testilying is the standard now, especially in mid-size departments.
I work in the civil side, but we occasionally have police testify in cases, and I have never seen a cop's testimony jive with the documentary or physical evidence. Even when the evidence supports them, they somehow come up with a third, less probable story.
In response, prosecutors said that in a more adversarial hearing, “police officers might not testify.” This should be cause for real public concern in that any prosecutor knows that officers have no choice about such matters and are required by law to testify. Officers know this too. In fact, prosecutors routinely issue subpoenas mandating the appearance of officers at even routine hearings. This should be a matter of concern for Las Vegas residents as it may indicate that the prosecutors involved hold a low opinion of the intelligence of the public or may care little for what the public thinks.
Actually, I see it as the prosecutors involved having a low option of the officers' respect for the law. I could very easily see this as a combative police force that says, "tough, we're not testifying. What are you going to do, fire the whole department?"
So it would appear that the prosecutors and the police are indeed on the same page in this case.
What is most disturbing to me is that the police and Costco are on the same page as each other -- and no one else, including the few photographs we have. Is the prosecution in cooperation with the police, or with Costco's deep pockets? Are DAs elected officials in Nevada, and are they up for reelection soon?
Posted by: Phelps at September 26, 2010 11:59 AM (jhIJh)
2
Any witness who states they saw a gun in Scott's hands are somewhat less than reliable, and their accounts should be thoroughly discounted in your analyses.
In the ambulance driver's report of the incident, written while they were driving back - and this report may not yet be generally available - the paramedics write that THEY REMOVED SCOTT'S GUN FROM HIS WAISTBAND HOLSTER and placed it on the ground.
This little FACT is somewhat at variance with a whole lot of what was said, and what some of the less acute observers who are saying they saw a gun in Scott's hands.
Also: Scott and Sam' walked by officers who were AT THE ENTRANCE when they were walking out, and THOSE police didn't see anything unusual (i.e., threatening) in Scott's attitude. It was ONLY after they'd passed by THOSE officers that the Costco part-time employee pointed out Scott and Sam' to the three officers (she was standing beside) who were involved in the shoot.
Posted by: davis,br at September 26, 2010 12:04 PM (uCShA)
3
Aargh ...not "from", but "with".
Posted by: davis,br at September 26, 2010 12:08 PM (uCShA)
4
I used to have the utmost respect and admiration for LEO's. I used to want to be around them and maybe know them. My pastor at Dewey Borea in Wisconsin was a longtime well respected LEO. One of the people I admire most here in the blogosphere is a retired LEO. I have a 1st cousin who is a state of OK LEO.
At one time in my life I thought to be a LEO.
You know what? I am so disgusted with Law enforcement in general today, this all makes me sick to my stomach.
It takes a man to be honest no matter what. Cowards lie. And cops that cover up lies and liars are just as mentally ill as the ones who screwed up. They are called enablers, codependants. In blue collar vernacular, CNF. Out of respect for this site I will not spell it out, but I will give a hint. The first C=crazy.
If any civi made the same mistake it would be life in prison or the death sentance.
The law applies across the board not parcelled out to those who have an in and know the words. Frankly if law enforcent personell decided they were not going to testify in a belligerant type of trial or hearing throw them in jail and then fire them. We got 8 million people out of work including a huge number of certified lawenforcment people who would love to have a job in Vegas.
Posted by: ron at September 26, 2010 12:37 PM (l4u8Y)
5
My ex-wife was an assistant district attorney in Memphis, and even as a prosecutor, she definitely considered police to be potential perjurers. That's from her experience of them lying at trial, not from prejudice against less educated people.
Posted by: Rich at September 26, 2010 12:41 PM (P0dk/)
6
Thanks for the update on analysis.
Don't the police have open mics on their uniforms now? Surely those picked up some of the commands/conversation.
Posted by: Robert at September 26, 2010 12:49 PM (eSGqw)
7
As for the video, there might be a reason for the police to "innocently" lie about them.
I won't name the store, except to say it is NOT COSTCO but I know for a fact that a major chain of stories has alot of domes that looks like it has cameras, and about 90% of them do not. That is right, they buy the domes to imply the existence of security cameras, without actually buying the cameras. So the truth might be that costco doesn't have cameras where you THINK they do, and are lying to us to cover that up.
I don't know, reading all this from the inquest, its really hard to figure out what the truth is. Some versions suggest the man was really intoxicated, some say he as trying to go for his gun, some says he was not. And the contradictions come from people who had no particularly good reason to lie.
I will add that even the pro-Scott version of things is questionable. I believe in the second amendment, but i believe in property rights, too. Costco had every right to say, "either the gun goes, or you go," and the moment he refused to remove himself or the gun, he became a trespasser. That doesn't fully justify the shooting, but it does put things in perspective.
Posted by: Aaron Worthing at September 26, 2010 01:05 PM (3WdSk)
8
"...adrenaline fueled personalities--and in many respects, that’s who we want for police officers..."
No.We.Don't.
Once we get past this belief, policing can go back to service. If we don't get past it the police are in a lot of trouble as folks start realizing that if you're gonna get shot by the cops anyway, one might as well shoot first.
Posted by: Jeff at September 26, 2010 01:15 PM (FPKD1)
9
Based on the testimony so far I don't see any possible justification for two officers who fired the rounds that hit him in the back. They were fired at a prone, unarmed and immobile person who was not resisting or presenting a threat of any kind. I'm wondering how this kangaroo court comes up with a way to justify that.
Posted by: Kevin at September 26, 2010 02:24 PM (oQnl3)
10
Its interesting what posters chose to believe. I don't believe any cop in America cuffs a suspect then leaves him with a gun in his holster until the EMTs get there.
This whole thing is sad and the whole truth will never be know by anyone not involved.
Let's remember the law. If the Officers felt they or their fellow Officers were in deadly peril they had the legal right to shoot.
For them to be convicted of anything, you have to prove that is not what they THOUGHT.
One more point. If someone pulls a gun out in your direction, you react. You don't wait to see if the holster is still on the gun or if his finger is on the trigger.
I wonder how many of the armed citizens who post here would allow that without defending themselves, by a guy acting like Mr. Scott was acting.
Posted by: Paul Fels at September 26, 2010 03:24 PM (9nHDF)
11
People who actually believe that a prone unmoving person with their empty hands visible presents an imminent threat that justifies shooting them 5 times in the back are suffering from psychosis. I don't believe that that government should issue psychotic people guns. I'd further suggest that the state should lock up psychotic people who kill people due to their delusions.
Posted by: Kevin at September 26, 2010 03:45 PM (oQnl3)
12
There needs to be an independent forensic investigation of tbe video without a completely different agency reviewing there claims, they shouldnt be believed.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 26, 2010 03:58 PM (H/VZC)
13
You left out the fact that Scott's drug levels were so high as to "be lethal to most people."
I see no evidence that the police have lied in this case.
Posted by: Austin at September 26, 2010 06:57 PM (+0qBi)
14
First, I like this blog. Good thoughts here.
Now for my question. I'm new to the blog but you say your an officer so I will ask you to address this, as I think the officers main mistake was the way they initially approached Erik.
My neice is a leutenent for a Sheriff's office (as well as having completed FBI academy in VA) and I spoke at length with her last night.
Her only negative comment about the officers were, when they knew the store was being evacuated, 100+ people exiting in a condensed group...and Erik walks out calmly, keeps walking away from officers, THEY HAD THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE and would have been trained to 'take him down' (tackle) and restrain him if they truly thought he was ED. She said also that a calm man could still methodically be intending to shoot, so Erik being calm means little, but the factors of 1. there hadn't been a shooting yet (apparently, you never put a crowd in danger unless a shooting has already happened inside), 2. When the officer is behind him, he sees both hands and knows that he can 'take him down' and restrain him, especially with 2 additional officers for assistance as well as them holding their guns. 3. An officer would never startle a subject that is ED as you aren't sure of his response, UNLESS you are intending to get him restrained in a fluid movement.
so... let's say Erik was on drugs and let's say Erik was in an ED (Excited Dalerium) state, she said they are trained to approach the situation EXACTLY OPPOSITE how they did.
Now keep in mind, she repeatedly took the officer's side through the conversation, even enlightening me (and diffusing MY anger over some of this)...so for her to go into such detail, I believe her. Can you, as an officer, expand on that?
Posted by: reason111 at September 26, 2010 07:18 PM (8VlkG)
15
Paul Fels says:
"Let's remember the law. If the Officers felt they or their fellow Officers were in deadly peril they had the legal right to shoot.
For them to be convicted of anything, you have to prove that is not what they THOUGHT."
In other words, this cop, like many others, thinks he is allowed to murder as many people as he likes, so long as he then says he "THOUGHT" he was in deadly peril.
Judging by the record, (though possibly I read too much Radley Balko) he is perfectly correct.
Posted by: Lark at September 26, 2010 08:03 PM (WmNHY)
16
Note: The primary sources for this article were the Las Vegas Sun and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
You know LVRJ is the paper that sues everyone who uses their material, right? I know there are no direct quotes here, but I'd still be careful.
Posted by: Beej at September 26, 2010 08:16 PM (xCWV5)
17
The Nevada FOP endorsed Obama & Reid, so the officers involved will not face prosecution.
Posted by: 5th Level Fighter at September 26, 2010 08:32 PM (SgL5z)
18
Fels - You don't know what you're talking about. It is not and has never been the law that a cop's the subjective "feeling" that he/she is in danger, regardless of whether that feeling is reasonable under the circumstances, authorizes the use of deadly force. And your condescending comment about what posters choose to believe is best directed at yourself, since you base your analysis on a claim for which there is no credible evidence, i.e., that Scott "pulled out his gun" in the cops' direction and your conclusions about how Scott was acting in the face of contradictory and suspiciously missing evidence. Your post is nothing but unthinking, ill informed pro-cop nonsense.
Posted by: Smoke at September 26, 2010 09:03 PM (+mTXz)
19
Aaron Worthing - Unless you take the position that it justified the use of deadly force that would otherwise have been unjustified - which is absurd - Scott's disputed trespasser status adds no "perspective" whatsoever.
Posted by: Smoke at September 26, 2010 09:14 PM (+mTXz)
20
My husband is a 12 year Police veteran and I have been in the Military myself so I can see things clearly from this particular 'background'. It is as the other individual coming from a Police Force stand point has stated. The moment that Scott reached for the gun and grabbed it, whether or not he un-holstered it, the Police were within their rights to shoot him as this produced a possibly imminent fatal circumstance if he were to pull it out and begin shooting. I would have done the same thing that Mosher did. I have not seen any CONFLICT of information that he was told to 'get down' BEFORE he went for the weapon. There is also NO CONFLICT of 'witness' statements as to the obvious FACT that he 'went for something' underneath his shirt behind him which is where his gun was holstered.
Another FACT is that if you are under the influence of ANY NARCOTICS, prescribed or otherwise, it is ILLEGAL TO CARRY A WEAPON. PERIOD!! This fact does not make it correct to shoot a man down who is in that state and carrying BUT if he goes for the weapon after being told to 'get down on the ground' and he does not comply than he creates a volatile situation and it's up to the Officers to make the call. I am pretty sure that had Erik Scott (if he did not get the gun out of it's holster) had gotten the gun out of it's holster and actually fired it, whether accidentally OR intentionally, there would be a whole other barrage of people screaming and carrying on about how the Police should not have 'allowed' that to happen! They're (the Police) damned if they do and damned if they don't. This is all because of a few ignorant and nasty S.O.B.'s (a few Police) who think it's OK to abuse their positions. MOST cops are just doing the best that they can under the circumstances and it's all too easy for a 'civilian' to go off on tangents of misunderstanding when they are all safe in their cuddly homes while the cops are in harms way each day!
Posted by: T at September 26, 2010 09:42 PM (/idn4)
21
T,
Regardless of who's right and who's wrong here, past police actions, both petty and serious, have strongly contributed to a lot of folks' (my own included) reflexively anti-cop bias in cases like this.
Things like the Amadou Diallo and Sean Bell shootings don't help, but neither does the everyday "above the law" mentality of police. I imagine that, where you live, you also have those little black and blue stickers on cars. Essentially, a guarantee of no tickets for cops and their friends and families.
I think it boils down to this: When you see a police car on the road, or a policeman in public, do you feel safer, or more likely to be harassed? For too many people, the latter is not only a perception, but a reality.
Posted by: Jake Badlands at September 26, 2010 10:32 PM (WGxKF)
22
Vin Suprynowicz
Once again, coroner’s inquest not open to the public
http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=598
"Sheriff Doug Gillespie visited us here at the Review-Journal offices on Aug. 3. He acknowledged the importance of an open-to-the-public inquest process to maintain public confidence in that process, and in his department. “I’m not lookin’ at hidin’ anything, nor is my organization,” the sheriff said. That’s why they were going to hold the Erik Scott inquest in the largest available courtroom, so all who wanted to attend could do so, the sheriff vowed. But that turned out to be the usual pile of crap."
Worth reading.
Posted by: Curtis Cope at September 26, 2010 11:08 PM (3jc7L)
23
It almost seems that the Costco employees have discussed and aligned their testimony in regard to Erik being "drunk or drugged". It is human nature to attempt to justify actions that lead to such terrible results, and such a group consensus after the fact is not unlikely.
Posted by: Jeff at September 26, 2010 11:26 PM (FUR+7)
24
for all you defending the cops ...
5 rounds in the back of a dead man ...
you should all be ashamed ...
Posted by: Jeff at September 26, 2010 11:27 PM (+5uxG)
25
It looks like there are two of us Jeffs! And we posted at almost the exact same time.
A comment on the previous post by Austin. We keep hearing "lethal amounts" of drugs. Obviously it wasn't lethal, as he was still walking and talking. Use of the adjective "lethal" is not particularly descriptive, and it's continued use by the media is prejudicial. Even if it means that his tolerance was high, it doesn't confirm or deny that he was acting strangely.
---
You left out the fact that Scott's drug levels were so high as to "be lethal to most people."
I see no evidence that the police have lied in this case.
Posted by: Austin at September 26, 2010 06:57 PM
Posted by: Jeff II at September 27, 2010 12:10 AM (FUR+7)
26
Gee, T, maybe you and your husband could put together a guide that lets us lowly civilians know what we're allowed to think and say.
Your post demonstrates the arrogance, "us v. them" mindset and dishonesty in evaluating police conduct that make citizens fear and distrust law enforcement.
Posted by: Smoke at September 27, 2010 12:48 AM (+mTXz)
27
Paul Fels:
"Its interesting what posters chose to believe. I don't believe any cop in America cuffs a suspect then leaves him with a gun in his holster until the EMTs get there."
So now you think the EMTs lied about they being the ones to remove the gun from its holster?
Posted by: Greg at September 27, 2010 01:29 AM (WIyjR)
28
One Pissed Mom
All three Officers needs to go to prison for murder!! Officer William Mosher always wanted to be famous he got it!
Posted by: Amy at September 27, 2010 03:13 AM (ldvpI)
29
As a former cop, I can tell you that this incident and it's investigation stinks! I have no doubt that EVERYONE, wishes they could take back the bullets and undo the trigger pulls. Since you can't, they'll do EVERYTHING they can to to make sure that any exposure to liability is destroyed or limited.
You must remember that there are political careers on the line. "Ooops,"is never an adequate defense for killing and innocent man, which is exactly what happen here. Whether anyone will admit to it or not. They definitely won't do so in this case.
What remains is for the public to make their own judgments based upon what is being withheld and covered up, and the exact implications of those circumstances upon the average person who may be faced with any similar situation.
Given the totality of the circumstances, the police acted improperly and killed someone unnecessarily in this instance, calling into question, their judgment, training, selection and supervision at minimum. It is clear that all of this will be ignored and life will proceed as normal for everyone involved except the victim and his family and friends.
Posted by: mmm at September 27, 2010 06:41 AM (X0/Vw)
30
I recently saw a video of two police (a male and a female) officers that had stopped a guy in a Corvette. The male officer had the traffic violator on the ground and was in the process of placing restraints on his hands. The other officer had her gun drawn and pointed in the direction of both. It seems she couldn't keep her finger off the trigger.... her weapon went off and fired a round, luckily, missing both her partner and the traffic violator. At this point, she placed her weapon back in her holster.
These were Los Vegas police officers.
Posted by: Jim at September 27, 2010 09:55 AM (GKZBr)
31
As far as I know, no EMT has testified that the took the gun off Mr. Scott, the claim was an internal document from the ambulance crew stated it.
If someone testifies to it, I will give it more credit, however, do YOU think a cop leaves the gun on the guy he just shot while he cuffs him, then just forget the evidence that justifes the shooting? Against all his training and his own best interest?
So the answer is "No I don't"
Posted by: Paul Fels at September 27, 2010 10:41 AM (9nHDF)
32
"My husband is a 12 year Police veteran and I have been in the Military myself so I can see things clearly from this particular 'background'. It is as the other individual coming from a Police Force stand point has stated. The moment that Scott reached for the gun and grabbed it, whether or not he un-holstered it, the Police were within their rights to shoot him as this produced a possibly imminent fatal circumstance if he were to pull it out and begin shooting. I would have done the same thing that Mosher did. I have not seen any CONFLICT of information that he was told to 'get down' BEFORE he went for the weapon. There is also NO CONFLICT of 'witness' statements as to the obvious FACT that he 'went for something' underneath his shirt behind him which is where his gun was holstered. "
So if the police are simultaneously yelling contradictory commands at you, it's up to you to guess in which order you should obey them. And if you get the order wrong the police are justified in gunning you down? And although we have a 2nd Amendment, which guarantees that right, and although he had a Concealed Carry permit which signifies that he met local regulations, the mere possession of a firearm is justification for the police to begin shooting? Perhaps it's just me, but I would have thought that he would have actually drawn the weapon and attempted to fire at the officers before shooting was justified. I don't think "he made a suspicious move" is good enough.
Posted by: Mike Giles at September 27, 2010 10:47 AM (C5v6T)
33
T,
"Another FACT is that if you are under the influence of ANY NARCOTICS, prescribed or otherwise, it is ILLEGAL TO CARRY A WEAPON. PERIOD!!"
Really? Can you cite that law for me, please? Is that the law where you are? Is that the law in Nevada? It's certainly not the law where I am.
Posted by: Tam at September 27, 2010 10:49 AM (GGWd9)
34
Could anyone post the relevant section of Nevada law that justifies (a legal, not moral, term) the use of deadly force by police officers.
I know in New York State, the PERCEPTION of the Officer firing the shots does indeed determine if the officer can face criminal charges. This does not protect them from civil liability.
As to all the debate about video remember the cameras in retail stores are set up to cover the registers and parts of the store with valuable merchandise, not to give clear views of every inch of property, inside and out.
That doesn't mean there might not be relevant video, just that you can't count on it. Lots of banks get robbed without clear video of what happened, even though that is the type of event they are set up for.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Hate on, haters....
Posted by: Paul Fels at September 27, 2010 10:57 AM (9nHDF)
35
It is unlawful under Nevada Law to carry under the influence:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec257
Posted by: Sebastian at September 27, 2010 11:20 AM (tyIu6)
36
Often, an officer can not pause for even fractions of second. Here's a website based on University studies on the time for suspect/officer motions in engagements.
http://www.forcescience.org/demos/subject/
Note the suspect motion times for drawing and firing weapons are based on students with no prior experience with firearms.
Police do not shoot-look-shoot. That is- they don't shoot, then assess wether they've hit, then shoot again. They are trained to shoot until the threat stops. A hard thing to judge during an engagement. The website also has links to studies showing, with modern semi-automatic pistols, how long it takes to stop firing after the recognition/decision is made.
If you're familiar with OODA loop theory, (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act), it explains why action beats reaction, which always places the police at a disadvantage as they can not complete the OODA loop in time to shoot at a subject prior to the subject firing- if the subject is determined to fire.
I do not know what went on here or how LVPD trains their officers. But it has been shown that officers can fire 1-2 rounds AFTER recognizing the threat has stopped and making the decision to stop firing.
Posted by: styrgwillidar at September 27, 2010 11:37 AM (xGZ+b)
37
Well, it is clear that Scott was abusing drugs and that is why he is dead. Not some police conspiracy, not some Costco conspiracy, not some anti-gun conspiracy. He is dead because he mixed drugs and guns. If you are "doubling up" on your prescription drugs for pain, don't carry a gun. And if you do, leave private property when you are asked. And don't point a gun at a police officer.
You should be embarrassed that you think that there is any exculpable testimony in this case. Are all the witnesses with evidence you disagree with under some Sevngali like influence of the police?
And, by the way, what do "character" witnesses have to do with this inquest? They were not present at the Costco and did not see the shooting.
Posted by: Federale at September 27, 2010 11:56 AM (JS6HU)
38
I also like how this went from Scott is a blameless paragon of virtue, West Pointer, soldier and business man to well, even if he was under the influence of drugs, it is the police officers fault anyway.
First you denied he was under the influence of drugs, then claim it has nothing to do with anything.
You are an embarassment to those who are fact based thinkers and who also support the Second Amendment.
Now the Second Amendment is about the right to use drugs and carry weapons.
Posted by: Federale at September 27, 2010 11:59 AM (JS6HU)
39
This story it is great for those that do not need to know the real true.
Posted by: piese auto at September 27, 2010 01:23 PM (DsOOM)
40
It's well established that the police didn't find the second gun he had. It was found by EMS personnel, who showed up once the police decided that maybe they should contact EMS a few minutes after they shot him. It appears the police searched him to the standard they used for everything else in this incident.
http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12785374
"Scott was rushed to a hospital, but died on the way. On the way to the hospital, a second gun was found on Scott."
Posted by: Kevin at September 27, 2010 01:31 PM (iRZ55)
41
1. It is reasonable for the police to disarm an unconscious suspect. It is reasonable to photograph the gun lying on the ground. It is not reasonable to then testify as to how that gun got on the ground other than to say they put it there. We do not know what they testified to or what is in their reports.
2. I call BS on the “lethal dose of drugs” meme being distributed. For his body weight, a lethal dose is lethal. Lethal means he is not able to cavort around COSTCO for several hours. What is lethal to a 95 lb girl is irrelevant. The drugs were prescribed for him. Talk of lethal doses is pure hyperbole. Fact: It isn’t a lethal dose if it doesn’t kill him. Therefore whatever amount he had cansumed was something less than a lethal dose, just like everyone else who takes drugs properly under a doctor's care. I will accept the argument that perhaps he died of gunshot wounds shortly before his painkillers would have killed him anyway.
Posted by: Professor Hale at September 27, 2010 01:37 PM (PDTch)
42
"No store patrons or employees were hurt [with one notable exception] . Police want to emphasize that they believe no customers were ever in danger by police gunfire [Again, with one notable exception-- further, no other customers or employees were ever in danger from Mr Scott]. Capt. Patrick Neville says the officers who fired used a pillar that holds a canopy as their backdrop."
Must have been a pretty wide pillar to accomodate three officers shooting from close range. Did they decide that ahead of time or was it a fortuitous accident? If planned that way, then this was premeditated murder, with a very narrow window of opportunity. Otherwise the story should be, "we got lucky and the police didn't accidently shoot anyone else nearby".
Posted by: Professor Hale at September 27, 2010 01:49 PM (m7EhJ)
43
**As far as I know, no EMT has testified that the took the gun off Mr. Scott, the claim was an internal document from the ambulance crew stated it.**
I know the family Paul; the EMT report hasn't been released. There's more to come.
Posted by: davis,br at September 27, 2010 01:59 PM (uCShA)
44
...there was no second gun. The introduction of that was to maintain some semblance of cover by the agency, since they, too, know about the EMT report.
Posted by: davis,br at September 27, 2010 02:02 PM (uCShA)
45
"I also like how this went from Scott is a blameless paragon of virtue, West Pointer, soldier and business man to well, even if he was under the influence of drugs, it is the police officers fault anyway.
"First you denied he was under the influence of drugs, then claim it has nothing to do with anything.
"You are an embarassment to those who are fact based thinkers and who also support the Second Amendment.
"Now the Second Amendment is about the right to use drugs and carry weapons."
While I'm sure that some people are changing their defense of the guy over time, I, for one, am still a bit concerned that Scott was gunned down the way he was. Were the police correct in what they did? From what I've read, I'm inclined to think not. Will they be convicted of anything? Unless I see stronger evidence one way or the other, I'm also inclined to think, likely not.
Does it matter that Scott was drugged up? Probably not, unless it was clearly affecting his behavior. Does it matter that he was living with his girlfriend? To me, I find that behavior to be morally reprehensible, but such behavior has nothing to do with this issue. Yet, others have used this as a justification for the shooting--that is, he basically had it coming.
At the very least, the Las Vegas Police should have some serious soul-searching about what went wrong here...and hopefully, they'll be able to learn from this tragic incident, and prevent others like it from happening.
Posted by: Alpheus at September 27, 2010 02:56 PM (ASZE6)
46
We should hear soon enough how many guns are in the possession of LVPD and if they match the numbers on his permit. Or is the pistol permit office in on the big conspiracy too?
Posted by: Paul Fels at September 27, 2010 04:14 PM (9nHDF)
47
And if the officers missed a second gun, that is poor police work, albeit under a high stress situation.
Posted by: Paul Fels at September 27, 2010 04:16 PM (9nHDF)
48
Sebastian,
"It is unlawful under Nevada Law to carry under the influence:"
Thank you for the cite.
You can understand, based on my years of moderating large internet gun forums, that I have heard people declare authoritatively that it is:
Unlawful to "brandish" (a term that only has legal relevance in very few states. One of which is, unsurprisingly, the NRA's home state of Ol' Virginny...)
Unlawful for your gun to "print"
Unlawful to carry where alcohol is served or sold
Unlawful to carry if you have a beer
Unlawful to... well, you get the picture...
So when I hear somebody declare authoritatively that everybody knows that it is absolutely unlawful to [fill in the blank], I kinda want a cite.
Posted by: Tam at September 27, 2010 04:51 PM (GGWd9)
49
Yes, Thank you very much for the cite, Sebastian. I am IN NEVADA about 70 miles from Las Vegas. I am under the same type of Police Officers as in Las Vegas. I DO feel 'safer' with them and NOT as if I'll be taken advantage of. I have NO DISCOMFORT around them at all. It is my Opinion that if you feel so uncomfortable around Police Officers then you either have done or are thinking of doing something NOT QUITE RIGHT or ILLEGAL. I am 46 years young and have absolutely NO RECORD of any kind. Not even traffic citations or parking tickets. I don't break the law regardless of whether or not I agree with it. Civilians are not lowly but, as is clearly seen amongst the posts here, they don't quite understand some things and therefore make themselves appear more ignorant than they may actually be. **case in point** the actual LAW as to carrying a weapon under the influence.
I feel that it should also to be taken into account that both Erik and his girlfriend flat out lied and said that Erik was a 'Green Beret'. The girlfriend literally stated that he was IN THE ARMY and just got back from Iraq. This is absolute NONSENSE! He'd been discharged from the army since about 1999 and NEVER even came close to a combat situation. He only served 2 years total. Due to this out and out blatant lie NOTHING that this woman says can even be believed at this point. She says that she has known him for 3 years so she had to have known that he had been discharged for ten years.
The distrust of the entire incident is being propagated by both the MEDIA and Erik's father. Erik was under the influence of narcotics, regardless of how much of it was in his system it was very clearly affecting him. (unless you can somehow convince yourself that ALL of the witnesses to his odd behavior and delusional statements were all paid off by the city somehow?) He was also told to GET DOWN. Both witnesses for and against him said this. He was told to 'get down' FIRST before the other statements were made. He should have complied but did not. As to his being shot while down, this is also contradicted in statements as I've read that he was shot twice in the chest but it did not even phase him until the further shots were fired and that is when he began to fold down to the ground. As a matter of FACT the officers DID show restraint as they are taught to 'empty their entire clip' if they fire at somebody. They obviously just 'stopped' him from doing anybody any harm with the gun. Again, all he had to do was REACH FOR THE GUN after being told to GET DOWN and not complying.... this 'conflicting commands' thing is moot. He was told to 'GET DOWN' several times before anything else was yelled out. If he'd have been acting within the law, (being SOBER and not under the influence of narcotics while carrying a weapon) he'd be alive today.
All of these Opinions are based on if the facts as presented are actually TRUE or not. If they are not true than my opinion may differ.
If you're taking drugs DON'T CARRY A WEAPON. PERIOD. No problem. If you are stopped by the Police for ANY REASON (whether or not you've done something wrong) do as they tell you, especially if you are carrying a weapon. Drop your butt to the ground, allow them to disarm you themselves and cuff you. This IS within the law. If you comply and all is in proper order you will be released and your weapon returned to you as soon as it's confirmed. If you feel they've mistreated you in any way than file a complaint against them.
I do my own research so if anyone wants to 'confirm' what I've said about Police Training look it up yourself. I've done my research so it's up to anyone who finds these comments interesting to do their own research.
Posted by: T at September 27, 2010 08:20 PM (/idn4)
50
T, you are full of baloney. I have closely followed the inquest. I heard every word the medical examiner testified to. Erik was shot seven times; once in the chest, through the heart, once in the upper right thigh, once through the left armpit and directly through the heart and four times in the back. There were two .45 cartridges and five 9mm cartridges found at the scene, according to the lead detective. Also according to the lead detective, two shots by Mosher (as he testified (the chest and thigh shots that entered his body from the front) one by one of the two other officers that fired and four by the other officer. Those five shots were in the back and through Erik's left armpit.
Please don't lie about the evidence in the case. It does a disservice to every reader.
Posted by: Paul Schmehl at September 27, 2010 10:18 PM (D13W4)
51
Thank you for your insightful and detailed analysis of this tragic incident. I also thank the commenters for taking the time to review and comment on this event. May God bless you all.
Posted by: DisabledVeteran at September 27, 2010 10:34 PM (f6EZ7)
52
We should all be looking for the truth. Whether you gyrate your loins and get a warm feeling running down your legs at every sight and mention of a cop ... or, you just hate cops. Doesn't matter.
Maybe Scott deserved getting shot ... although not in the back. Maybe he didn't? If the cops are lying and covering up ... the least we can hope for is that Karma will meet them in the back in a most terrifying way.
Posted by: C. Cope at September 27, 2010 11:01 PM (3jc7L)
53
Actually, Paul Schmehl, I am not lying. YOU SIR should do your homework before replying! As I said in my above post, I am only going on what I have seen written and heard on the media. Here is what I am talking about from the Las Vegas Sun:
"He was a deadly threat with that weapon in his hand," Mosher said.
Mosher said at that point, fearing for his own safety, fearing for the safety of the other officers and fearing for the safety of the crowd, "I fired my weapon at center body mass."
He said he shot twice, then stopped. He said Scott didn't fall immediately. Then he heard the other two officers also shoot."
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/erik-scott-day2/
What the coroner has said actually bears out the statements from my previous post as at least 2 of the shots entered from the front of him and that would be Mosher's. Mosher says he fired twice and than heard 'other shots'.
Your statement, "Please don't lie about the evidence in the case. It does a disservice to every reader."
only serves to do YOURSELF a disservice. Please sir, do your RESEARCH before speaking. If you misunderstood what I said than your response is understandable.
Posted by: T at September 27, 2010 11:11 PM (/idn4)
54
Look, T, you said he was shot twice in the chest and did not fall. Whether you based that on media reports or not, that is false. He was shot once in the chest and once in the thigh. Then, as he was either falling or had already fallen to the ground, according to witnesses, he was shot five more times. The only thing Mosher got right was that he shot twice. One of the five other shots entered Erik's buttocks, passed through his bladder and traveled vertically through his body cavity, coming to rest in the thoracic area. Those are the facts, as testified to by the medical examiner (not the coroner)
If you're going to take Mosher's testimony as fact, you are going to be wrong 95% of the time.
You quote Mosher as saying Erik had a weapon in his hand. He did not. At best he had his HOLSTERED weapon in his hand, and even that is in dispute. Mosher said he fired at center body mass. That may be were he thought he fired, but the evidence proves that is false.
Testimony at the inquest indicates that when Mosher shot Erik, he stepped back and then began falling to the ground. The two other officers then moved in and fired while he was falling to the ground or had already fallen.
If what you write about the case is false, that is called a lie, by definition. Either get the facts or stop posting.
Posted by: Paul Schmehl at September 27, 2010 11:57 PM (D13W4)
55
On top of everything that has been posted here, I can't imagine a big store like Costco evacuating the store for a man with a gun who is acting normal. It just doesn't make sense. They could have called the police and had the police arrest him inside for trespassing - and all those customers could have kept on shopping and spending money.
Posted by: Vanya at September 28, 2010 05:27 AM (wKZH8)
56
When several police officers confront an armed man, they don't all line up right in front of him, just so the bullets don't hit him in the back. Shooters in the past have soaked up more rounds than hit Mr. Scott, then killed officers, as in the Miami Massacre
This is not a video game, people....
Posted by: Paul Fels at September 28, 2010 09:57 AM (9nHDF)
57
T, you stated
"As a matter of FACT the officers DID show restraint as they are taught to 'empty their entire clip' if they fire at somebody."
I know officers from 4 southern CA police departments and 3 federal agencies. None are taught to 'empty the clip', all are trained to 'fire until the threat stops'.
Could you please provide a citation or link to a Police department supporting your statement, that they train officers to 'empty their entire clip'?
Posted by: styrgwillidar at September 28, 2010 03:58 PM (IrbU4)
58
the family needs to own up and realize there son was an addict!!(wish i was his dealer)that had no reason for being out and about.. hes under the influence of pills or anything for that reason he should of never been carrying his gun oh i mean guns which through out his ccw permit rights with it. the family should be thanking metro they didnt shoot him more and can have an open casket!!pretty sad a guy with all his great training could seem to understand anything like get down get down but the 40 or so other people did.. lets hurry up and get these cops back to what they do best before another Erik scott comes out of the woodworks. you people need to stop relying on news or this jackoffs page for info just watch it @fox5vegas live and see for your self what all the non employees are saying>>>from the sounds of half of these post they dont belive anything not even when the defence of homeland security cop testified he saw everything and had no choice he pointed the gun at the police .. pretty simple people youi pont a gun at cop and you should be shot not tazered like all the idiots have been saying thats like bringing a knife to a gun fight
Posted by: jack mehoff at September 28, 2010 04:59 PM (ZTV05)
59
As a matter of FACT the officers DID show restraint as they are taught to 'empty their entire clip' if they fire at somebody.
If that is how they are trained, then they are trained to act negligently and criminally.
Lethal force is legally employed to stop a threat. Continuing to fire when there is no threat because you still have ammunition in the magazine is murder.
Justifiable homicide by a police officer in Nevada is:
NRS 200.140 Justifiable homicide by public officer. Homicide is justifiable when committed by a public officer, or person acting under the command and in the aid of the public officer, in the following cases:
1. In obedience to the judgment of a competent court.
2. When necessary to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.
3. When necessary:
(a) In retaking an escaped or rescued prisoner who has been committed, arrested for, or convicted of a felony;
(b) In attempting, by lawful ways or means, to apprehend or arrest a person; or
(c) In lawfully suppressing a riot or preserving the peace.
The statute limitig lethal force in making an arrest in Nevada (as opposed to, say, execution, like in 1. above) is:
NRS 171.1455 Use of deadly force to effect arrest: Limitations. If necessary to prevent escape, an officer may, after giving a warning, if feasible, use deadly force to effect the arrest of a person only if there is probable cause to believe that the person:
1. Has committed a felony which involves the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm or the use of deadly force; or
2. Poses a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or to others.
Once a suspect no longer poses a threat to the officer or others, lethal force is no longer authorized, and using it is therefore murder or manslaughter(depending on malice aforethought, actual or implied.)
Posted by: Phelps at September 28, 2010 06:57 PM (o/6if)
60
I stand corrected on the misquote of the LAW as I was going on what my husband had said and I misunderstood him. 'fire until the threat stops' is CORRECT and I was mistaken and I apologize. It was not intentional. His stipulation was that if the perpetrator does not go down than you continue to fire UNTIL he goes down and this is to include emptying your clip. As to Paul Schmehl's comments, AGAIN, I am only going on what the media has said that Mosher said and that is what was posted above. Did you, Mr. Schmehl or did you NOT read the link I provided in my post? AGAIN, this is what was attributed to Mosher's statements. It clearly states that Mosher indicated that:
"He said he shot twice, then stopped. He said Scott didn't fall immediately. Then he heard the other two officers also shoot."
This statement, that he DID NOT FALL right away, was the MAIN STIPULATION of the original comments and they regarded the 'reasoning' behind further shots being fired. This statement was printed in the Las Vegas Sun newspaper and I have provided you the link for that. The fact that he was shot in the chest and 'thigh' has little bearing on the issue at hand. BOTH of these shots were to the front of his body. You have very clearly missed the point I was making. Just because you feel Mosher is lying (it seems that you see liars everywhere since I'm obviously one too!!) does not make this statement any less than what it is. It had nothing to do with the actual locations that the rounds penetrated the front of his body and everything to do with the 'reasoning' for further shots being fired.
I clearly stated in all of my posts that I was going on what I had READ and, therefore, I AM NOT A LIAR and if I make a mistake I own up to it.
Jack Mehoff seems to be one with the least proclivity of anal retentiveness here. His statements make much more sense and are stated bluntly and without condescending remarks of suggested prevarication. Thanks Jack for the breath of fresh air!
Posted by: T at September 28, 2010 08:55 PM (/idn4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 24, 2010
Exclusive: Another Character Witness for Erik Scott
Irrelevant character assassination seems to be the order of the day at the Erik Scott inquest as we go through the third day of the process. Prosecutors have spent the the first days of the inquest talking about everything but the actual facts of shooting. Quite frankly, there is little chance that this farce can end with justice being served. There have been at least 200 inquests there since 1976, and none have led to the criminal prosecution of a police officer.
Not surprisingly, the prosecutor's attempting to portray Scott as a violent drug addict runs completely counter to the way friends and co-workers characterized the West Point and Duke MBA grad.
In an exclusive to Confederate Yankee we have the testimony of someone who claims to have been one of Erik Scott's business rivals. I think we'd all be thrilled to have our rivals speak of us in such glowing terms.
Unlike many who've come to their own opinions on the unfortunate episode, I knew Erik Scott. I competed with him, directly, in medical device sales for two years before moving on to another surgical specialty. Less than two months before his tragic death, he reached out to me regarding openings in my field and I was only too happy to oblige him. Competitors and doctors, alike, respected him and I can't recall a negative word being uttered against him.
To my knowledge, he was a go-getter and never demonstrated any of the erratic behavior his ex-girlfriend seems inclined to attribute to him.
In short, while I hope for justice's sake that the police responded properly to what they construed as a dangerous situation, I find it difficult - in the extreme - to believe Erik pulled his weapon and pointed it at an officer. The rumors I've heard regarding the incident involve him gesturing - hands held overhead - in a manner to acknowledge firearm possession in his "fanny pack." He was, indeed, a large and well-muscled man who could have provoked fear in lesser trained individuals, but it seems more than improbable to me that he'd draw his weapon in such a scenario. As anyone who's lived in Las Vegas for some time could tell you, law enforcement may tolerate the lesser "BS" from irresponsible tourists, but the serious business is met with a decidedly different edge.
I'd be comforted to find I'm wrong about this and that the Erik's death, while tragic, was largely his own responsibility. But I fear this is not the case. The dearth of video surveillance footage from one of the highest volume, best-located Costco retail locations in greater Las Vegas strains credulity. As a weekly shopper at that very location, this incident strikes close to home in more ways than one.
I've withheld this character witnesses name by request, as he rightly fears a potential backlash from a suspect law enforcement community in Las Vegas. It is worth noting, however, that this statement is far more in line with the statements of those who knew Erik Scott the best than the character being created during the inquest.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:39 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/
Seems as if many here are not willing to give Law Enforcement the benefit of the doubt until the inquest is over. This saddens me as a Police Officer and retired Marine.
Posted by: YatYas at September 24, 2010 10:01 PM (7x2zX)
2
Boycott Costco...
When I was young there were no reports of overreaction by law enforcement like there are today, so I suppose that the level of scepticism is high, and note the number of comments are very low in this series of threads.
If law enforcement has succeded in intimidating the general public to the point that none dare confront them politicaly or openly......that is very bad for a Democracy. Very bad.
It may also explain the difficulty in getting proper raises from politicians.
Posted by: Ron at September 25, 2010 12:57 AM (NM9kl)
3
"Seems as if many here are not willing to give Law Enforcement the benefit of the doubt until the inquest is over. This saddens me as a Police Officer and retired Marine."
Tango Sierra. Too many LEOs get away with antics that would land "civilians" in prison for 5-10. You want the benefit of the doubt, you need to earn it.
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at September 25, 2010 02:16 PM (HUW1q)
4
When I was a LEO, we expected to be held to a higher standard than the general public. Mr. Scott is dead because the store reported him in violation of an unpublished policy. By all accounts, the Vegas police sent a group of officers who surrounded Mr. Scott shouting conflicting orders then fired when Mr. Scott started to comply with one of the three orders. If Mr. Scott made any mistake, it was moving before the panic died down. The disappearance of the store videos and the dispatcher's tape has all the appearance of a cover-up. This will do nothing to protect the 3 officers, their department or the city. I realise I am judging after the fact but there is no excuse for Mr. Scott's death. It appears the officers did not know the law they were sworn to uphold, reacted in a hysterical and unorganized fashion, killed someone complying with their conflicting requests and are now attempting to hide their inadequacies. I'd say these officers are in deep trouble as is anyone attempting to cover this up.
Posted by: Jerry in Detroit at September 25, 2010 11:13 PM (BfKQ/)
5
Seems as if many here are not willing to give Law Enforcement the benefit of the doubt until the inquest is over. This saddens me as a Police Officer and retired Marine.
It saddens me as a citizen, as well. Not because I think there is any rational reason to give them the benefit of doubt, but because I think that this situation has been well and truly earned by the few bad apple cops in this country, and by the masses of "good" cops who look the other way, day after day.
Posted by: Phelps at September 26, 2010 12:02 PM (jhIJh)
6
Thank you for following this and for sharing the statement on one of Erik Scott's competitors. Very insightful.
Posted by: DisabledVeteran at September 29, 2010 08:05 AM (C9aYf)
7
YatYas, thank you for your service in our military and as a police officer. Most of us know many great people who are law enforcement officers, just as many of us know many great people who are teachers, politicians, lawyers, bankers, parents, mechanics, farmers, etc. Many of us have friends and relatives in law enforcement. But we are all human beings who sometimes make mistakes and sometimes, given the right circumstances, can do things that are not ideal. Many law enforcement agencies have avoided the problems that seem to plague Las Vegas. Where I live, the law enforcement agencies do a great job on both protecting the public and policing their own ranks. They seem to take care of errant officers before the public is even aware of it. Law enforcement officers are held to a very high standard of conduct. They also seem to have a higher level of training than Nevada. Nothing like what has been occuring in Las Vegas has happened where I live. It is unheard of. Perhaps the officers were only doing what they were trained to do. But perhaps Las Vegas needs to take a step backwards and ask, "Can we learn anything from this?" I feel very sorry for Erik, the Scott family and friends, and the officers. But God can sometimes use tragedies like this to open eyes to prevent something even worse.
Posted by: ConcernedCitizen at September 29, 2010 08:18 AM (C9aYf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Our Racist Executive Branch
I read Christopher Coates' prepared testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights early this morning, and was able to watch several minutes of the proceedings (still being broadcast live) during lunch.
It is beyond infuriating to read and listen to this testimony, and realize that our Department of Justice, with the blessing of the Attorney General and White House, explicitly condoned racism, providing that racism was directed at whites by minorities.
Officials involved in this scandal should resign in embarrassment, but they seeming blinded to their own racism, thanks to how their thought processes have been warped by their political ideology.
Law must be enforced equally, and justice meted out impartially for our Republic to function. The purposeful inequality forced with the Department of Justice requires nothing less than the targeted firings of all involved.
If this does not occur, we have ceased to be a nation ruled by law.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:14 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Save your anger for November 2, 3, 4 and 5 when it becomes clear the ratbags have committed widespread vote fraud.
www.wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/
Posted by: Davod` at September 24, 2010 06:55 PM (GUZAT)
2
We ceased being a nation of laws on January 20, 2009.
Davod, you are sooooo right. It will make Bush v. Gore look like a Sunday walk in the park.
Posted by: mixitup at September 24, 2010 08:26 PM (Z21cb)
3
So now the cat is out of the bag ...
The next time Republicans need to suppress a bunch of white liberal voters, they just hire a bunch of Blacks to go over an harass them .. the DOJ won't protect their sorry asses.
Republican wins .. Black unemployment goes down .. a win-win.
Posted by: Neo at September 24, 2010 11:09 PM (tE8FB)
4
Who in the hell is actually surprised at this? Does the term "afirmative action" ring any bells? What in the hell IS aa if not discrimination?
Posted by: emdfl at September 25, 2010 12:00 AM (us8To)
5
Of course, as any liberal will tell you, persons of color cannot be racists, even if their actions are demonstratably so. We payed a lot of money at espensive Eastern upper class universities, so it must be so.
Posted by: garrettc at September 27, 2010 01:30 PM (DQjJA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Unfit to Lead
Asking a comedian to perform, in character, in front of a Congressional committee is just the latest example of why Democrats are incapable of leading this nation.
Stephen Colbert seemed more than willing to prove that point:
Stephen Colbert's routine as a Republican commentator on his hit TV show might leave millions of his fans laughing every night, but he failed to amuse lawmakers Friday during a House panel hearing on farm jobs and illegal immigrants.
Colbert stayed in character during testimony as he made light of his experience working for one day as a farm worker.
"America's farms are presently far too dependent on immigrant labor to pick our fruits and vegetables," he said. "Now the obvious answer is for all of us to stop eating fruits and vegetables and if you look at the recent obesity statistics, you'll see that many Americans have already started."
While some audience members laughed, most the members of the House Judiciary subcommittee barely cracked a smile.
"This is America," Colbert continued. "I don't want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American, then sliced by a Guatemalan and served by a Venezuelan in a spa where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian."
I guess this is what we should come to expect from a Party led by a Hawaiian brought up in Indonesia that some feel is a Kenyan who has the economic views of a Cuban.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:32 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The important thing is that no one notices Coates' testimony.
-Bri
Posted by: Bri at September 24, 2010 05:00 PM (rlN1o)
2
Lofgren should have worn a red rubber ball on her nose and a pointy hat during the hearing. She is emblematic of the farce that the Democratic Party has become.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at September 24, 2010 05:05 PM (xU82U)
3
Maher, Colbert, Franken, Stewart: DEMOCRATICS, THE PARTY OF COMEDY.
But Bri is correct. While Colbert was smearing the Dems with shxx, Coates was offering testimony that the Obama "Justice" Dept. is officially raaacisst against white people. Coates testimony dumped a whole truckload of shxx on Obama's head and all over his black suit.
Posted by: Fred Beloit at September 25, 2010 09:53 AM (N+EfZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 23, 2010
Just Words
Everybody and their mother is weighing in on the 21-page Republican Pledge to America. I'm sure it is faithfully edited, watered-down enough to avoid taking any too-controversial positions, and focused-grouped to death. But I could care less what it says.
It's just words.
I'm far more interested in actions.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:23 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Welcome back and glad to hear things are going well. Missed checking in while you were on hiatus.
Posted by: dejapa at September 23, 2010 07:57 PM (vgOEg)
2
Amen. That is exactly my reaction to it.
In other words: show me the money.
Posted by: ECM at September 23, 2010 08:37 PM (nYKDd)
3
How can they prove themselves unless we elect them?
Posted by: Steve in TN at September 24, 2010 12:59 AM (kMph6)
4
"It sure it is faithfully edited..."
Unlike this document
Just messing with ya.
Posted by: Kevin at September 25, 2010 04:01 AM (1sB4u)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 41 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.3383 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3237 seconds, 175 records returned.
Page size 151 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
