TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

chartreuse wrote:Of course it can and does. But LV appears to have form for gleefully covering it up.

Edited to add: My use of the word "gleeful" is deliberate. When the first man that I made a case against was jailed, I celebrated. It took me about a day and a half to figure out that that attitude was not very Christian and, instead, I should rather have felt quiet remorse that the man's actions had, justifiably, led to his being deprived of his liberty. It's very easy to fall into a "them and us" mindset, but I don't think it's particularly helpful.

Interesting that you say that, chartreuse. I was foreman on a jury in a DUI case. Once we had agreed on the verdict, I said, "God help us. We have just convicted a fellow citizen of a crime. This will haunt her the rest of her life." I knew it was the right verdict, but I still felt lousy about it.

Thanks for sharing that, baldeagle. It illustrates the point that I'm, rather clumsily, trying to make. Namely, that there's a big difference between soberly doing what is necessary and being gung-ho for it. I know LEOs in many countries who take the former approach. It appears that LVPD has an institutionalized culture of taking the latter.

seamusTX wrote:Do you really think this kind of incident couldn't happen somewhere else?

It happens in New York City about once a year. It happened early this morning when the police shot a correction officer who was allegedly walking around drunk with a pistol:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... -shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

Of course it can and does. But LV appears to have form for gleefully covering it up.

Edited to add: My use of the word "gleeful" is deliberate. When the first man that I made a case against was jailed, I celebrated. It took me about a day and a half to figure out that that attitude was not very Christian and, instead, I should rather have felt quiet remorse that the man's actions had, justifiably, led to his being deprived of his liberty. It's very easy to fall into a "them and us" mindset, but I don't think it's particularly helpful.

Bart wrote:The reasons keep piling up to never go to a convention in Nevada!

Quite. In my last job I had to go to DefCon a few times and I found that I thoroughly disliked the city.

I've been out of the loop the past week and have just caught up with this thread. Seems to me that, in addition to badleagle's excellent analysis, there are two other rules to take away from this:
1: Don't go to Las Vegas.
2: Don't shop at Costco.

Keith B wrote:And, keep this civil without in-fighting or the thread will be locked. Discussion is fine, but everyone needs to keep open minded on all sides of this. None of us were there, and as much as it stinks, theories are just that until the evidence is put in front of everyone. Until that time, opinions are just that.

As outraged as I am, it seems to me that this is about the size of it.

baldeagle wrote:It sounds like Mosher placed his throw away gun at the scene to cover up what he'd done when he realized that Erik could not have been drawing to shoot. This is stunning testimony. It makes Mosher look really bad.

My word! Evidence of an officer using a throw away piece to create false evidence would be very significant. I say I'm a realist, though folks call me cynical, but I can't help hoping that, just this once, the truth might prevail.

seamusTX wrote:

chartreuse wrote:Where are the Feds?

These things take time.

As an example, in the case of Abner Louima, who was assaulted by New York City police officers, the civil lawsuit took four years.

- Jim

Fair comment. But, if the reality turns out to be anywhere close to the stuff (that I have no means of assessing for reliability) that we've been hearing, I'd kinda hope that they'd turn up sooner rather than later.

puma guy wrote:Just ran across this. Appears a lot of shooting victims should be dead even before Metro encounters them.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/fatal-shooting ... 72579.html

Good spot! I was somewhat puzzled, by the references to "lethal amounts" of this or that. Now, it appears that they have form for this.

Edited to add: Where are the Feds? I was given to understand that one of the benefits of partially surrendering local sovereignty to federal oversight is that, should the local authorities turn out to be murdering gangsters, federal authorities will step in to put things right. So where are they?

baldeagle wrote:According to the prosecutor the one camera that might have recorded the shooting was fed to a defective hard drive. So there will be no video of the shooting.

That's an "explanation" that might hold for a few minutes, with folks who are not expert in the technology in question.

My instinctive reaction is "why haven't the engineers who built that system been called to rebut that"? My considered reaction is "because the hearing is rigged to prevent them from testifying".

This is all very upsetting.

Edited to add: I don't have a dog in this fight. Except in so far as, I'd quite like not to be murdered and then the truth be covered up...

AndyC wrote:It's likely that his body was turning as he was hit; I imagine that the shot in the left buttock occurred as he folded over or was on the ground.

Would this be yet another question that the CCTV footage would answer?

Have we had the fantasy excuse about why it's unavailable, yet?

esxmarkc wrote:And why does any of this matter? If they yelled stop and he did not reach for his gun and they opened fire shooting him in the back several times then how does ANY of this matter? Isn't the sequence of events the only thing that matters here. I don't get it. I mean even if he was on every drug known to mankind and he was leaving the Costco after he ate a candy bar without paying for it first how is that relevant? The only thing I want to hear about is the sequence of events in the shooting.

Quite.

sjfcontrol wrote:all I get is a spinning ball

It won't work for me either. But the same link works fine for my buddy in KY.

I've held off posting in this thread, up until now, largely because I find the events so shocking that I've struggled to find the words...

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:Bottom line: Poor decisions were made on both sides and a man is dead as a result of those poor decisions.

I think I agree with you on this. Though hindsight is always 20/20, of course.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:It no longer matters who was right or wrong. No lawsuit or policy change will bring that man back to life. He is gone.

But I strongly disagree with this point of view. If changes are made that save the life of the next guy, then surely that's a positive thing and a way of bringing some good from a terrible situation.