TexasCHLforum.com

I am sure this will be an incriminating factor into the shooting. Even if he was habituated to the narcotics he had been prescribed, even with my small level of knowledge on toxicology, the levels they were describing that were in his system were very high and the mixture would have affected him greatly. Not saying this is the case with Mr. Scott, but anyone I have ever dealt that was an habitual user of narcotics or alcohol at high levels that could still function, still did not have their full faculties about them.

One example is the guy I arrested for DWI, and when we got him to the station he blew a .42!! I thought it was bogus, so had another officer administer the test and same results. Sargent came in about that time and said 'Oh, you caught old Jack.' He then explained that Jack was constantly drunk and that he had learned to function even with extremely high levels of alcohol. He had adapted so well that if he was only in the .2X range he drove well enough to not be weaving and causing any issues (not that they would let him go if seen, he just didn't attract attention to himself cause he was driving OK.)

Bottom line, these items in Mr. Scott's system could have played a VERY important role in his reactions (positively or negatively) and responses to the officers commands in a proper and timely manner.

The shot in the left arm pit and the shot in the buttocks that traveled up into the body cavity would seem to raise some real questions about the shooting.

esxmarkc wrote:

Erik had lethal doses of prescription morphine and zanax (both are depressants) in his body, however he must have habituated to them because he appeared to be functioning normally.

I'd like to see a hair follicle regression that shows his long term drug history. With the position he held he appeared to be EXTREMELY functional. And from his appearance he appeared extremely fit - I mean work out every day kinda fit looking. On that much pain management (morphine) and on that kind of fitness regime? I'm not one that buys into conspiracies but this is starting to stink.

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.

Doc Bunny, in your expert opinion, is it likely that a person who was infused with what amounts to a normally lethal combination and amount of morphine and zanax as found in the defendants body to a act in a normal manner?
“No sir not likely”
Doc Bunny, in your 30 years as a (insert fancy Doc title) having treated thousands of people and prescribing these two drugs together have you ever seen a person with this amount (shows tox report) of drugs in there system act in a rational manner? “no” Be capable of relational behavior? “no”
Doc bunny, in your expert opinion when a person is taking such a serious and normally lethal dose of morphine and zanax are then normally capable of understanding complex directions or answering stressful requests? “no sir, I would say they normally are not capable of understanding those type things when so heavily medicated”
Doc bunny, one last question. Have you evr seen or interacted with a person who had this much morphine and zanax in there sytem? “yes” What was that person like? “they were unresponsive to directions given, failed to comprehend simple tasks I asked them to do, acted agitated and made furtive movements while acting very confused".

Thank you Doc Bunny, you are excused.

Something like that is what in a court it matters what the coroner found in his system. IANAL.. so I may be way off on my guess here.. but.. it seems possible.
.. Ask yourself,,, and be truthful.
If you and the LEO were in different places, you being accused or investigated for shooting a LEO. in a like set of circumstances. Don’t you think the tox report on the deceased LEO would be front and center of your defense plan?

I don’t like the whole situation, I’m not trusting of the system Erik is being looked at by, I dislike how the whole thing has been handled, and I don’t automatically take for granted that drugs in his system make him at fault…. I’m just saying.. in court, I understand why it makes a difference.

stroo wrote:The shot in the left arm pit and the shot in the buttocks that traveled up into the body cavity would seem to raise some real questions about the shooting.

what does the 4 shots in the back do for your spidy sense

bronco78 wrote:

stroo wrote:The shot in the left arm pit and the shot in the buttocks that traveled up into the body cavity would seem to raise some real questions about the shooting.

what does the 4 shots in the back do for your spidy sense

What it tells me (if I'm understanding the coroner's descriptions of the entry wounds and directions of travel correctly) is that one officer was facing him and two were behind him, to his left and to his right.

Hmm, is it common for police to surround a subject, then shoot toward the center of the circle? Anybody else see a problem there?

sjfcontrol wrote:Hmm, is it common for police to surround a subject, then shoot toward the center of the circle? Anybody else see a problem there?

Don't jump to conclusions. I may be completely off base in my observations. I had a great deal of difficulty sorting out the positioning of the officers based on the coroner's descriptions of entry and direction of the bullets.

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?

chartreuse wrote:

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?

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.

A bullet entering the left buttocks, traveling to the right and ending up near the liver could be a shot almost directly from behind; either bent over or prone. I'm not a doctor, but I know the liver is a very large organ and extends right to left way past midline. I read that he fell to his knees, then while prone was shot several more times in the back. Common sense indicates an arm pit entry would indicate a raised arm. I've been watching this and was wondering what they'd bring up on the guy. From what I can determine about the inquest process it's completely one sided and not even remotely related to due process and so far it looks like the guy will be assasinated twice. IMHO

Since when are dead men put on trial?

Anygun

-

--Whitewash--



God go with the family and Mr. Scott.

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...

chartreuse wrote:

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.

The prosecutor stated that the disc had failed two days previously but had not been replaced. I don't know if there will be expert testimony regarding the drive. I would assume that there will be.