Cops kill CHL holder

[Fill]

Early, but looks like he was killed trying to display that he wasn't armed.

A second anonymous witness said Sunday he saw Scott pull up his shirt and turn toward the shouting officer. Then he saw the man get shot, drop to his knees and fall face-first in front of the entrance.

"There wasn't even time for someone to react," the second witness said. "The guy didn't pull a gun. There was no gun in his hand, there was no gun on the ground."

linky

[mekender]

Be interesting to see how this one comes out... Money says that they blame the guy regardless because he was armed.

[Aglifter]

What's odd is the "customer destroying merchandise and displaying a handgun." Given the camera systems on those places, there should be some pretty high resolution footage of what happened. If he suddenly snatched at his shirt, and the cop's been told the man's acting irrationally, and is armed, I could see a cop firing - and I think he'd be justified.

[308Mike]

Eyewitnesses are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable, physical evidence speaks volumes.

[Fill]

I agree that we need to see the physical evidence, especially the video of the victim-perp's behavior inside and outside the store. And as unreliable as witnesses are, when 4 of them report observing the same thing, it does cast a long shadow of doubt on the officers' initial statements. My guess is that all of the officers were barking commands, and he turned to face the one that told him to lift his shirt. The other officers didn't hear the command, and thought the victim-perp was drawing a weapon.

Regardless, I don't think cops should use deadly force unless they see a weapon and perceive the intent to use it. Anyone have insight into SOP in such a situation?

[Aglifter]

A) If you EXPECT to see a weapon, w. sudden movement, in a high-stress situation, you WILL see a weapon - same way "fakes" work in sports, but w. the addition of much less familiarity, and much more stress (maybe) - certainly a less familiar type of stress.

Sometimes I think the average LEO does not have NEARLY the training needed to be armed - scratch that, I KNOW he doesn't have the training needed. Although, TMK, it's never been tried - I think the best answer would be for a LEO to be armed the same as any other citizen, and to be expected to respond the same - and to keep some HRT types in most major cities, w. the expectation that all a regular LEO does is maintain a perimeter, and wait for the trained fellows.

Sometimes, I think the old "posse commititatus" system worked better - you could either surrender to the professional LEO, or deal w. an inexperienced, and armed populace. It also meant there was a clear leader to follow in such a situation, and ONE man to give orders.

TMK, the military is big on rapidly determining who's in charge of a situation, and immediately adapting itself to that command structure - it would probably be good for LEOs to have a similar system.

[workinwifdakids]

[Edited for relevance to the topic after I re-read the article...]

It's troubling that we have several officers whose stories all match, and a group of onlookers whose stories all match, but the stories provided by the onlookers substantially contradict those given by the officers.

There will be video, but my prediction will be that it will reveal nothing of value. Chris, after reading the article, what about it caused you to believe it was a bad shoot?

[mekender]

Ok... if the info in the article is correct, it's straight up a bad shoot.

Let's see what develops...

Yeah the comments I was seeing on the local news sites have people saying that they saw the whole thing and it sounds like a bad shoot to me...

Any bets on if the Costco cameras will have a malfunction in that area of the store?

[Glenn Bartley]

Ok... if the info in the article is correct, it's straight up a bad shoot.

You do mean an absolutely straight up good shooting - do you not?

[merll2005]

Ok... if the info in the article is correct, it's straight up a bad shoot.

You do mean an absolutely straight up good shooting - do you not?

A second anonymous witness said Sunday he saw Scott pull up his shirt and turn toward the shouting officer. Then he saw the man get shot, drop to his knees and fall face-first in front of the entrance.

"There wasn't even time for someone to react," the second witness said. "The guy didn't pull a gun. There was no gun in his hand, there was no gun on the ground."

The second witness said he was interviewed by homicide detectives and gave them the same account.

The first anonymous witness also didn't see Scott make a threat.

"I certainly did not see the guy do anything with a gun that would threaten anybody," the first witness said Sunday. "It appeared to me that if he had guns on him, that they were literally in his pocket or in his waist."

The first witness also was interviewed by homicide detectives about the shooting.

Amesbury said he did not see the man get shot, but, "When I go around the corner, I see this guy laid out. I didn't see a gun." Amesbury's view of the shooting was blocked by stone pillars. He was not interviewed by police.

Before the shooting, Scott was walking with a woman that three witnesses thought was his girlfriend. They said she became distraught after the shooting. The incident also left the witnesses shaken.

It's just incredible "with all these people around that Metro would provoke something there," the second witness said. "I don't want to second-guess the police, but wouldn't it have been better to confront him out at his car?"

If this those witness accounts are correct that would mean the five-oh shot a man who was substantially complying with their instructions and then made false claims that his gun was"out of his waistband".