TexasCHLforum.com

OldSchool....skub made an excellent case of the point I raised. I think you misunderstood what I said. I did not advocate rioting or attacking the jail because of any disagreement I might have with a decision handed down by a jury. And you are right - if we the people don't believe in the fairness and justice of our criminal justice system, then we do indeed have a serious problem. One that must be corrected legally.

PeteCamp wrote:OldSchool....skub made an excellent case of the point I raised. I think you misunderstood what I said. I did not advocate rioting or attacking the jail because of any disagreement I might have with a decision handed down by a jury. And you are right - if we the people don't believe in the fairness and justice of our criminal justice system, then we do indeed have a serious problem. One that must be corrected legally.

I understand. Sorry if I reacted too strongly!

No problem.

Keith B wrote:There was mention of him carrying two pistols early on. What happened to that slant?

It came out in today's testimony. He had a Kimber 1911 in an IWB holster on his right side, and a Keltec P-3AT in his right pocket. The Keltec was found by the paramedics while traveling to the hospital. The Kimber was laying on the ground beside his body, still in the holster, live round in the chamber but not cocked.

EDITED: Apparently I misunderstood the testimony. Erik had registered a Keltec P-3AT with LVMPD (as required) but apparently had a Ruger 380 (unregistered) in his pocket. (I would assume an LCP.)

However, the family apparently contends that Erik only had one weapon on him when he was shot. The Ruger is supposedly a police plant, made to cover for the story that the paramedics found a weapon on the body and removed it.

At this point, it's hard to know what the truth is. I think the civil trial will be much more helpful that the farce of the inquest. Without cross examination of witnesses, it's almost impossible to determine what actually happened. There's simply too many conflicts between witness accounts.

puma guy wrote:

OldSchool wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Keith B wrote:There was mention of him carrying two pistols early on. What happened to that slant?

I have heard no mention of the second pistol in inquest testimony. The inquest testimony has been very frustrating. Lots of ground has not been covered and many stones are unturned.

I didn't remember that. That would be interesting. Was it in one of the stories linked to this thread?

There was some information early on that two weapons were involved. If you listen/read Shai Lierley's running dialog with the 911 dispatcher he stated the gun was in the rear but it was very vague, He stated later Erik was checking it on the right side. I don't think he ever saw the gun himself. Another employee saw it. The info about two weapons could have come from someone privy to the 911 call or maybe there was information dispatched about the original in the rear and then adjusting something on the right. Police scanners would have picked up any dispatched information. I can imagine myself fidgeting and checking to see if my shirt was down if I'd been outed.

I remember reading on his father's blog that the 2 gun version was false.

Keith B wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Maybe there is a good reason the Scott family is being coy. According to a commenter in this Confederate Yankee post, Erik's gun was removed from his waistband by paramedics while they were treating him. This would mean that Scott never even withdrew his holster, unless someone put it back in his waistband after he was down.

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.

There was mention of him carrying two pistols early on. What happened to that slant?

Apparently Erik had two weapons. The link to Confederate Yankee blog describing events in the inquest stated there was a picture submitted by the prosecutor of the Kimber in a holster but I thought someone posted that the data or code embedded in the digital photo was not the day of the shooting. Did I miss something?

puma guy wrote: Apparently Erik had two weapons. The link to Confederate Yankee blog describing events in the inquest stated there was a picture submitted by the prosecutor of the Kimber in a holster but I thought someone posted that the data or code embedded in the digital photo was not the day of the shooting. Did I miss something?

Andy C. posted that. After giving it some thought, I realized that Andy C. was not looking at the metadata on the original photograph but on a copy rendered over the internet. That copy would have the date when it was copied, not the date that's on the original.

HighHandicap wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Evidently Costco's policy regarding the carrying of firearms is company wide. I'm not sure how that applies in Texas, where a 30:06 sign is required to forbid carrying.

We all should know the answer to this. That can be their policy, but without a 30.06 (or a person in charge asking you to leave your weapon outside) it doesn't matter.

It mattered enough to me that I canceled my and my wife's membership...They won't have me to kick around anymore...I think someone else said that before me. lol

baldeagle wrote:

puma guy wrote: Apparently Erik had two weapons. The link to Confederate Yankee blog describing events in the inquest stated there was a picture submitted by the prosecutor of the Kimber in a holster but I thought someone posted that the data or code embedded in the digital photo was not the day of the shooting. Did I miss something?

Andy C. posted that. After giving it some thought, I realized that Andy C. was not looking at the metadata on the original photograph but on a copy rendered over the internet. That copy would have the date when it was copied, not the date that's on the original.

Ah! So! I kind of wondered if there was a different code each time its copied. Since digital photography is subject to manipulation it's almost useless as evidence I would think. Raw data would be the only way to use it maybe.???

baldeagle wrote:

Keith B wrote:There was mention of him carrying two pistols early on. What happened to that slant?

It came out in today's testimony. He had a Kimber 1911 in an IWB holster on his right side, and a Keltec P-3AT in his right pocket. The Keltec was found by the paramedics while traveling to the hospital. The Kimber was laying on the ground beside his body, still in the holster, live round in the chamber but not cocked.

I have read that there was not a live round in the chamber. In addition, apparently in Nevada, you must qualify for each gun you carry. There seems to be some conversation that Erik had the Keltec on his concealed carry permit, therefore he was illegally carrying the Kimber, which would then make him a criminal, completing the triple crown of he deserved to die.

I think the inquest begins again tomorrow.

Thanks for clarifying that, Andy C. A photo of the original makes perfect sense.

The jury ruled justified.

baldeagle wrote:The jury ruled justified.

I'm shocked. I wonder what the next step will be.