TexasCHLforum.com

It is hard to follow everything that has happened at the inquest. But from what I have read, it appears that his girlfriend did not testify. They said they could not find her. An earlier recording of her statement was played ( please correct me if you find something different).

Near as I can tell the plaintiffs attorney is not letting anyone favorable to Erik's side appear on stand, so to preserve their testimony for a trial where he can cross examine. If he lets one of his witnesses appear, he has no control of what they are asked and cannot object to the questioning.

So it appears they fully expect a verdict here of justifiable and are preparing for the civil trials and I presume a federal civil rights violation.

As many of you have pointed out. Erik broke no laws and was killed by police officers for no other reason than they were scared.

A lot of the testimony seems to show preparation, rather than the truth. The police officer never saw the holster, but he testifies he did, because the evidence shows the gun was holstered. He fired when he saw movement, but he can not say that, so he says the victim pointed a holstered gun at him. The Costco employees all say the same thing even down to the exact height of Erik.

The photo of the gun on the ground is interesting. The hammer is not back. So it may not have been cocked and locked. There might not have even been a bullet in the chamber. Erik, in addition to taking the gun out of the holster to fire, he may have also had to rack the slide and take it off safety. Seems that would be important to know, as it would speak to his state of mind. Was he in the process of killing the three police officers who were drawing down on him, or was he just handing over a holstered weapon that was to him, not even loaded.

Erik paid his life for some very real world experience for all of us.

Did they testify that pistol was all the time holstered? If true, then there is no way the holstered pistol could be considered dangerous. No way you can discharge a pistol with holstered pistol pointed to the officers or otherwise. Also, anyone questioned whether the pistol was loaded, cocked and ready to fire? was the safety on?

Beiruty wrote:Did they testify that pistol was all the time holstered? If true, then there is no way the holstered pistol could be considered dangerous. No way you can discharge a pistol with holstered pistol pointed to the officers or otherwise. Also, anyone questioned whether the pistol was loaded, cocked and ready to fire? was the safety on?

Yes, the pistol was always holstered. Even when it was laying on the ground next to the dead Erik. Officer Mosher testified under oath that it was possible to fire a holstered weapon, then admitted under questioning that he had never tested that theory but was "certain it was possible". He also testified that he could tell that Erik's gun was a Kimber 1911 .45 in a Uncle Mike's IWB holster. There has been no testimony yet as to the condition of his gun (loaded, cocked, safety on or anything else.)

baldeagle wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Did they testify that pistol was all the time holstered? If true, then there is no way the holstered pistol could be considered dangerous. No way you can discharge a pistol with holstered pistol pointed to the officers or otherwise. Also, anyone questioned whether the pistol was loaded, cocked and ready to fire? was the safety on?

Yes, the pistol was always holstered. Even when it was laying on the ground next to the dead Erik. Officer Mosher testified under oath that it was possible to fire a holstered weapon, then admitted under questioning that he had never tested that theory but was "certain it was possible". He also testified that he could tell that Erik's gun was a Kimber 1911 .45 in a Uncle Mike's IWB holster. There has been no testimony yet as to the condition of his gun (loaded, cocked, safety on or anything else.)

Then, the evidence is clear, the officer overreacted and shot Erik when he was disarming himself. Any one asked the officer how one is supposed to disarm himself? he claimed never tested the theory because he is not an idiot and any LEO knows that one of the functions of the holsters is to not to allow any access to the trigger and render the holstered firearm harmless.

Also, wasn't said in the 911 tapes that the subject pulled a gun, not pointed a gun. The gun was holstered, no? I believe the whole enchilada of the show is to cover the rear ends of all involved.

Beiruty wrote:Also, wasn't said in the 911 tapes that the subject pulled a gun, not pointed a gun. The gun was holstered, no? I believe the whole enchilada of the show is to cover the rear ends of all involved.

The testimony is conflicting. Some witnesses (including Officer Mosher) state that Erik pointed his gun directly at the officer. Other witnesses state that he never got the holster out of his pants. Still others say he was in the process of removing the holstered gun from his belt when he was shot. If we had video, the issue might be resolved, but we don't. At least not yet. There is some speculation that there is video that the Scott family is either aware of or has possession of, but they are withholding all their evidence from the inquest and have not been cooperative with the DA. I suspect that the Scotts have felt that the inquest was a foregone conclusion. They are waiting to present their evidence in a court, where they can cross examine witnesses and rebut their testimony.

Wow imagine if there was a real video that clearly captured the incident. Imagine that such video shows up in court. Are those who testified would be proven to lie under oath?

Beiruty wrote:Wow imagine if there was a real video that clearly captured the incident. Imagine that such video shows up in court. Are those who testified would be proven to lie under oath?

All witnesses in the inquest are sworn in just as in a court proceeding. So I would assume their testimony is exposed to charges of perjury if it can be proven that they lied under oath.

baldeagle wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Wow imagine if there was a real video that clearly captured the incident. Imagine that such video shows up in court. Are those who testified would be proven to lie under oath?

All witnesses in the inquest are sworn in just as in a court proceeding. So I would assume their testimony is exposed to charges of perjury if it can be proven that they lied under oath.

Do you actually think that cops would be prosecuted for this? I think I've read enough accounts of bad arrests and bad reports and lying under oath and have seen maybe one or two actually be prosecuted if that.

Beiruty wrote:Wow imagine if there was a real video that clearly captured the incident. Imagine that such video shows up in court. Are those who testified would be proven to lie under oath?

My own opinion is that no such video exists unfortunately. I thinks that Scott's father is hinting that one does in a failed attempted to try and keep the officers 'honest'. I really hope I am wrong and that video evidence does exist to clear up what actually happened. I hate the very thought of 'dirty cops' but I hate the thought of corrupt justice even more.

As much as it sounds like the officer overreacted (and I think he did), be honest with yourselves. If someone you were pointing your gun at reached for, and retrieved, what you could positively identify as a gun... wouldn't you fire too?

The whole thing stinks, but disarming yourself in front of 3 drawn weapons is a horrible idea.

Fangs wrote:As much as it sounds like the officer overreacted (and I think he did), be honest with yourselves. If someone you were pointing your gun at reached for, and retrieved, what you could positively identify as a gun... wouldn't you fire too?

The whole thing stinks, but disarming yourself in front of 3 drawn weapons is a horrible idea.

The problem is, according to reports at the time of the shooting including Officer Mosher, who shot and killed Erik, Erik's gun was still in its holster and clipped to his belt as he lay on the ground dead. Furthermore, his girlfriend was screaming at the police, repeatedly, "Do not shoot! He is a military officer! He is not a threat! Do not shoot!" And she was looking directly at and made eye contact with Officer Mosher.

Officer Mosher testified that there was about 30 seconds between the time he began issuing commands and the time he fired his weapon. Based on the 911 tapes, it was two seconds. That's barely enough time for a person to process the commands, much less comply with them.

You are not hearing the true story at the inquest. The civil trial will be much different.

Fangs wrote:The whole thing stinks, but disarming yourself in front of 3 drawn weapons is a horrible idea.

That is why I like to use the phrase, "Grab some cumulus clouds."

baldeagle wrote:Furthermore, his girlfriend was screaming at the police, repeatedly, "Do not shoot! He is a military officer! He is not a threat! Do not shoot!" And she was looking directly at and made eye contact with Officer Mosher.

Unfortunately, that kind of thing usually does not get through to a person in a crisis situation. It just creates more stress.

Officer Mosher testified that there was about 30 seconds between the time he began issuing commands and the time he fired his weapon. Based on the 911 tapes, it was two seconds. That's barely enough time for a person to process the commands, much less comply with them.

That is also typical of crisis situations. Time seems to slow down. I've experienced it myself.

- Jim

Beiruty wrote:Did they testify that pistol was all the time holstered? If true, then there is no way the holstered pistol could be considered dangerous. No way you can discharge a pistol with holstered pistol pointed to the officers or otherwise. Also, anyone questioned whether the pistol was loaded, cocked and ready to fire? was the safety on?

I've seen plenty of cheaper holsters that are loose enough to get a finger down far enough to operate the trigger, Uncle Mikes included, since that's what it has been claimed he had. I know it's unclear whether he pointed the holstered gun at the officer or not, but assuming for a moment that he did, I know if I was that officer I wouldn't trust my own life to that holster preventing him from firing.

Brian

Beiruty wrote:Then, the evidence is clear, the officer overreacted and shot Erik when he was disarming himself. Any one asked the officer how one is supposed to disarm himself?

When the police are pointing guns at you, you don't. The last thing you want to do is make a movement toward your own gun. The officers will take care of the disarming, most likely after you're on the ground.

BrianSW99 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Then, the evidence is clear, the officer overreacted and shot Erik when he was disarming himself. Any one asked the officer how one is supposed to disarm himself?

When the police are pointing guns at you, you don't. The last thing you want to do is make a movement toward your own gun. The officers will take care of the disarming, most likely after you're on the ground.

I agree. However, due to the state of mind of Erick and hi-dose of depressant in his system, I would assume Erick did not react like a normal person. I assume he just wanted to drop the gun quickly.