Bob "Who are You?" Etheridge Sort of Pulls a Grayson

Thanks to his videotaped assault this summer Bob Etheridge is now known outside of North Carolina for the first time, despite a decades too-long career in the House of Representatives. That attention has given his Tea Party-supported challenger, nurse Renee Ellmers a real shot at taking the seat and sending the incumbent home.

Etheridge's biggest accomplishment of his career has been acting as a conservative Democrat while on the campaign trail, only to morph back into a liberal upon crossing the Potomac back into Washington, DC.

After getting shelled by Ellmers in a new video for voting to cut a half trillion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, Etheridge has struck back by claiming Ellmers wants to impose a 23% tax raise on everyone.

This is a desperate lie, by a flailing big-spender. Ellmers supports converting from our current Byzantine tax code to a simpler model, something akin to the Fair Tax or Flat Tax model. Lorie Byrd, a fellow Tarheel who works for the Ellmers campign, referred to this deception as an "incredibly brazen lie."

It's also an incredibly hypocritical one, coming from a liberal who voted to flee Washington without extending the Bush tax cuts, thereby automatically imposing an almost $1,500 tax increase on almost every family in his district.

Bob Etheridge is getting desperate. I wonder what fact (or person) he'll assault next.

Experts Rip Obamacare's REC Foul-ups

Houston Neal, Director of Marketing for Software Advice, emailed me a link to an article on his company's medical blog, explaining what his company feels that electronic health records and the Regional Extension Centers (RECs) created to support them in Obamacare are a huge mistake.

The entity spearheading this effort, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC), is specifically charged with helping 100,000 priority primary care providers become "meaningful users" of EHRs in 24 months. Eight months have passed since the ONC began funding RECs, and we're skeptical that they will deliver.

Don’t get us wrong. We're big advocates of EHRs. We're glad to see such an energized EHR market. We're just skeptical that throwing money at the problem will lead to efficient and successful adoption of this important technology.

In our opinion, there are five fundamental flaws with RECs:

1. Doctors aren't moving as fast as the money is flowing
2. The market already delivers on what RECs promise
3. "Preferred vendor lists" limit choice and free markets
4. RECs won't get doctors to "meaningful use" fast enough
5. The REC model leads to under-staffed, ephemeral entities

The article goes on the detail each of the five flaws in detail.

Obamacare—like everything else MR. ESPN has touched—is a mindlessly expensive disaster that costs billions and makes things worse for all Americans, and serves primarily to strangle private business and grow government.

Let's get this thing repealed

STAT.

Answer the Call

Nancy Pelosi's Democratic Congress has done what everyone has expected, tucking its tail between its legs and fleeing Washington to avoid voting on an extension to the so-called Bush tax cuts. Tactically, the move made sense.

Incredibly unpopular, viewed as arrogant, incompetent, and elitist, the evasive exodus gave Democratic incumbents hemorrhaging votes an opportunity to run to their home districts and use their expansive campaign war chests to try to buy another term in office. Granted another two years, they could dedicate their time to pissing away America's future for the sake of their dream of a progressive socialist United States.

Here in my home state of North Carolina I'm watching Bob "Who Are you?" Etheridge and Pelosi "Yes man" David Price attempt to convince Tarheels that they are moderates and centrists, despite voting records that prove otherwise. Like Price and Etheridge, many other Democrats in the would-be ruling party are similarly watching their support falling away, their time-worn, divisive cries of racism and class warfare falling on deaf ears in communities sharing the misery of crippling national debt and feeling quite Taxed Enough Already.

The Republican Party itself is little better than the Democrats, having their own turns in power and likewise abusing the public trust when they controlled Congress. Frankly, all incumbents need to be thrown out, across the board. In the wake of the purge this nation needs, new more fiscally responsible parties need to be reforged on both sides, but that is a battle to be fought after November 2.

Or, we can continue to re-elect those who fail to understand the real world and allow ourselves to be victimized by their incompetence, and still face the unpleasant task of rebuilding once the whole tottering edifice collapses from its own impossible bulk.

Our legislators in Washington can't fulfill their most basic duties, cannot honor the oaths they swore, and view us as something less than equals in their quest for power. November must lead to a sea change in American politics, or it will be a precursor to an eventual collapse.

Which eventuality is more likely? That depends entirely on how seriously you take your responsibility as an informed voter and American patriot, and whether or not you will continue to support the very thieves robbing our children blind.

Volunteer.

Vote.

Enjoy Your Nanny State

A $27.5 million mandate to change the font on street signs in New York.

The Federal Highway Administration is behind this, providing yet more evidence that branches of our nation's bloated bureaucracy need more than pruning; they need to be lopped off entirely at the trunk.

As Expected, Kangaroo Inquest Clears Metro Cops That Killed Erik Scott

It was always a foregone conclusion that the coroner's inquest would exonerate the three Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers that fired seven bullets into Erik Scott just outside the crowded doorway of an area Costco. The inquest process has cleared officers involved in a shooting since the days of disco, in more than 200 total incidents. In a process that allows law enforcement officials and the prosecution to shape the testimony and witness list without possibility of cross-examination, it is quite possible for Metro officers to literally get away with murder... or at least manslaughter.

And so last nights verdict came as no surprise: the officers were found justified.

Of course, we're still left with more questions unanswered than answered by the broken system championed by Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie, who is up for reelection this year.

The Scott family says they plan to file a Civil case against Costco and the Metro Police over Erik Scott's death. Under cross-examination we may finally get some of the many missing answers in this disturbing case.

My co-blogger Mike McDaniel, who has written a brilliant series of posts analyzing the case thus far, is meticulously researching the timing of the 911 tape, and will be posting another review of the evidence in this case soon that I promise you won't want to miss.

The coroner's inquest is over. Now the investigation into the death of Erik Scott can really begin.

What if Stuxnet is Just the Start?

I read a fascinating article early this morning about about the Stuxnet worm, which most computer security experts seem to believe is the first targeted, militarized computer weapon. While capable of invading other systems, it seems purpose-designed to exploit the specific weaknesses of Iran's industrial and military computer infrastructure. Even more amazing? Like organic organisms, it apparently turns violent when attacked.

The impression debkafile sources gained Wednesday, Sept. 29 from talking to European computer experts approached for aid was that the Iranians are getting desperate. Not only have their own attempts to defeat the invading worm failed, but they made matters worse: The malworm became more aggressive and returned to the attack on parts of the systems damaged in the initial attack.

One expert said: "The Iranians have been forced to realize that they would be better off not 'irritating' the invader because it hits back with a bigger punch."

As Stuxnet continues to sink its hooks into Iran's infrastructure, it is apparently sending data back to its creators...whoever that may be. That brings about what I feel is the next logical question: What is Stuxnet isn't itself the weapon, but the scout?

The oldest and best military advice is to scout your enemy extensively, learn the disposition of their forces, and then hit them with overwhelming force where least expected.

What if stuxnet is just the scout, designed to probe Iran's network, raise their alarms, and provide feedback on their response so that a real and even more powerful weaponized virus can knock Iran catastrophically with the press of a button?

That, my friends, is the ultimate power and leverage. If stuxnet is merely the messenger—what comes next is nothing less than the binary version of Death itself.

Get Your Own Pet Dan

But remember kids....love your pets, don't love your pets.

Absolute. Moral. Authority.

Maureen Dowd said Cindy Sheehan had it. Her allies in the MSM—on every channel and in print—hung on the ditchbank disciple's every deranged word as she railed against the Iraq War (a war her son chose to fight, in an army he joined of his own free will).

Now Saint Cindy of Crawford isn't so beloved. I wonder if it is because the useful idiot isn't so useful anymore. Or is it because those who embraced her and championed her are now embarrassed by what their fawning praise of a madwoman says about them.

BREAKING: Left-Wing Panel Finds All Woes Originate on Right

With the economy continuing to stagger and job creation not moving quickly, "working people are justifiably angry and frustrated" as they approach the Nov. 2 elections, says AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

Trumka and Working America Executive Director Karen Nussbaum, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, Eric Alterman, journalist and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and moderator Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of the Nation, led a panel discussion—Which Way for the Working Class? Elections 2010 and Beyond—Friday afternoon in New York City.

Which way for the working class? The direction coming from this group is obvious: left, and then down.

They also discovered that Republicans are uniformly rich and evil, that Tea Partiers molest children before cannibalizing them, and that Barack Obama can cure lupus with his mind. Make sure that you read the entire article at the link. You'll love Trumka's parting shot:

we need to fundamentally restructure our economy and re-establish popular control over the private corporations which have distorted our economy and hijacked our government. That’s a long-term job, but one we should start now.

Yes, kids... these people are, by definition, socialists.

The Erik Scott Shooting: Update 3.2

The next installment of this series, Update 4, which will analyze the 9-11 transcript presented at the Coroner’s Inquest (a visit to regarding that inquest is worth your time) and a partial radio transcript will be posted later this week, but so many commenters have raised excellent questions, as they so often do, that answering those questions may serve to clarify portions of the earlier updates and to further enlighten future updates. Consider this post Update 3.2.

Please keep in mind, gentle readers, that all that we can do in this series, and all that we are trying to do, is to provide informed background and plausible analysis using the facts and testimony generally available to the public. We can, upon occasion, break new facts and details not generally available, and we can make reasonable inferences based on those facts and details, but what we will always do our best to avoid is unreasonable literary bomb throwing. If the facts, and the reasonable inferences drawn from them, indicate that the police (or any other party) are wrong, we’ll make that case and explain why we believe it’s so. But no one should expect blanket pronouncements of malign intent, murder and mayhem unsupported by fact or reason.

Several commenters have been concerned about the police and their tendency toward perjury. Incredibly obvious and predictable disclaimer: Because the police are severely handicapped in hiring by being restricted to the human race, it is always possible that some police officers will behave inappropriately. They should not, but they do. That said, consider that the majority of arrests made by any police officer (did you know that a traffic ticket is an arrest?) are misdemeanors, offenses routinely settled without jail time by small fines. Perjury, on the other hand, is commonly a felony virtually everywhere. My experience teaches me that few officers will risk not only their reputations but their careers and potentially, their freedom, when so little is at stake. The other side of the coin is that when a great deal is at stake, when their reputations, careers and freedom might hang in the balance, perjury might become more likely. Such is the reality of human nature. Police officers are routinely accused of perjury. Have you ever heard anyone say: “Yeah, I got a speeding ticket today and the officer was completely justified in giving it to me?” I thought not. Should perjury be discovered and punished? Of course, but that’s a matter for each law enforcement agency and each community. If a given agency is rotten, community elected officials have the power to clean it out. If the elected officials refuse, citizens have the power to periodically clean them out. If the citizens refuse, they’re making a choice by not making a choice.

Information from another commenter suggests that Erik Scott’s handgun was removed from his waistband holster by an EMT and placed on the ground. I’m unsure if that commenter meant to say that an EMT removed the handgun, still in its inside the waistband holster, and placed it on the ground. According to the commenter, this information comes from an EMT’s report of the incident, which apparently has not been made public, nor was it introduced during the Inquest. The photograph displayed during the Inquest depicts a 1911 type handgun in a holster which the police said belonged to Scott and was photographed in place. I’m unaware of specific testimony regarding how it came to rest there, but the implication in line with the Police/Prosecutor theory is that Scott himself removed the weapon from his waistband at his back, holster and all, pointed it at the officers and dropped it at some point during the shooting.

If this is true, another bizarre and inexplicable element has been added to this case, so bizarre and inexplicable that I tend to discount it. If true, this means that after shooting and handcuffing Scott, the officers failed to disarm him, failing to remove even the weapon known to them. In other words, having, seconds earlier, apparently survived a deadly force encounter, the officers, through negligence, did nothing to remove all possibility of deadly, continuing danger to themselves and others. All available facts suggest that any officer handcuffing Scott should not have failed to detect his handgun, imprinted under his shirt, or partially exposed. Failing to remove and secure it would indicate such gross incompetence on the part of the officers that it is hard to believe and would require substantial proof to sustain, proof such as an EMTs report made public accompanied by that EMTs testimony, hopefully supported by the testimony of other EMTs. On the other hand, if it is true, the Police/Prosecution theory falls entirely apart. If EMTs found Scott’s handgun, in its holster still in his waistband after he had been shot and handcuffed, the officer’s claim that Scott pointed that weapon at them is, to put it very, very kindly, mistaken.

Another interesting tidbit is that the police have said that Scott was carrying two weapons, and at least one media outlet has indicated that “a second gun was found on Scott” by EMTs at some point in their contact with him, but I’ve not been able to find any details about just what that second weapon was, its chain of evidence, or how, if at all, if might have figured in this case other than to reflect very poorly on the officers involved whose search of Scott, post shooting, was apparently less than thorough. If he was carrying a second weapon, it’s unusual that it was apparently not prominently mentioned at the Inquest as it could potentially be used to depict Scott even more unfavorably. On the other hand, if the police did miss it, and an EMT did find it, that would tend to make the police look less than competent.

There is, given the information available, another (but not the only) plausible possibility. Confused by rapidly shouted, conflicting commands, Scott tried to disarm himself, reaching behind his back and removing his handgun, still in its holster. Evidence suggests that he may have done this, even telling the officers that he was disarming. Considering this scenario, what remains unknown is when the police began to fire. Did the mere downward movement of his raised hand trigger their fire? Did they wait until his hand disappeared behind his back? Did they, seeing something that might have resembled a gun (in this case, in its holster), appearing from behind Scott’s back even though it was not pointed in their direction, open fire? The Police/Prosecution theory requires that Scott remove the weapon from his waistband and, at some point, drop it. Unfortunately, that weapon was clearly still in its holster.

Several commenters have suggested that it did not matter, in making a deadly force decision, whether the weapon was or was not in its holster. If it was pointed at the officers, they had lawful justification to fire. This is a common scenario in shoot/don’t shoot training videos which one can reasonably expect that officers of a major metropolitan agency have experienced. Officers are expected to deal with exactly this kind of situation and train for it. Competent officers live in horror of shooting someone, even if completely justified, who turns out to have had in their hand a billfold or other item rather than the handgun the officer thought was there. Officers are expected to accurately make these distinctions before firing. Because they practice these scenarios, officers should be able to tell the difference, by observing a variety of factors, between someone trying to disarm or show them something, or someone in the drawing sequence of bringing a handgun on target from a holster. Officers do this successfully every day and untold thousands of citizens are alive because of their training and their ability to make these distinctions. To suggest that officers have no such duty would have disastrous consequences for us all, freeing officers to shoot at the merest hint of, rather than at reasonably convincing evidence, of danger.

Another commenter observed that officers were trained to shoot until they have stopped the actions that gave them justification to shoot and that initial action--a suspect preparing to shoot--is always faster than reaction--an officer’s response. Both are true, but with qualifications. Not only are officers trained to shoot to stop, but may legally use any number of rounds reasonably required, so long as they were initially justified in shooting. However, they are also responsible for each and every round fired and the safety of innocents. How then does one determine when the suspect has ceased hostilities and that shooting should stop? By observation. Officers must indeed be sufficiently aware of any situation so as to briefly pause after firing several rounds to determine if more are required. That this might take a second or less is not the issue. The only reasonable alternative is that once an officer fires a single round, they must empty their magazine until they are forced, by lack of ammunition, to finally assess the situation as they reload. This is obviously lunacy, but what other practical possibility exists? Action is indeed almost always faster than reaction, but officers understand this, and accepting it, train to overcome, to the greatest possible degree, this inherent disadvantage. This is absolutely necessary to prevent officers from firing too quickly with insufficient justification. No, they don’t have to absorb a suspect’s first round before returning fire, but there is a substantial range of action/response between firing too quickly and not responding properly. An officer’s actions in that gray area will be judged later by those who are not under fire and have months to review decisions officers had to make in seconds. This too, police officers understand and grudgingly accept.

Another commenter wondered about how the officers involved might have handled the approach to the situation differently. Officers train for situations of this kind, and again, to be kind, the approach in this shooting (based on what is currently known) does not appear to be what one would find in a “how to” textbook. In potential shooting situations, the police are trained to do whatever is necessary to control and contain the situation, and to the greatest degree possible, to protect the public. In other words, they should not do anything to provoke a fire fight in the middle of a crowd. Of course, bad guys don’t always give the police that option.

In this case, there is evidence to suggest that the police knew or should have known that they had the element of surprise. Apparently one or more officers were near the Costco entrance, perhaps even inside, and Scott and his girlfriend Samantha Sterner, walked past them. At that point, the police apparently did not know that Scott was the suspect they sought, and his behavior was obviously unremarkable to those officers. Update 4 will provide additional details about this, including the fact that Shai Lierley, the Costco security employee was apparently following Scott in the store, keeping him in sight while relaying Scott’s actions in real time to a dispatcher by cell phone. The police did know, for one of the first officers on the scene had ordered the evacuation, that all of the Costco customers were trying, simultaneously, yet in an apparently orderly manner, to leave the main doors of the store. At some point, a store employee pointed to Scott, essentially yelling “there he is!” This was apparently the first moment that the responding officers knew that Scott was their suspect, and the officers, exposed and caught by surprise in the open, with many innocent citizens in the line of fire, drew their weapons and the deadly confrontation began.

What should the officers have done? Remember, please, that I do not have a diagram of the Costco store and parking lot and that many of the details that I, or any competent tactician would need to render a truly informed opinion are, at this point, unavailable. However, common police training and experience do suggest a better (though not the only possible) approach.

Without being able to recognize the suspect on sight, and knowing only that he was still inside the store and was not actively, continuously violent, maintaining the element of surprise by silently approaching the store (which may have been done), parking police vehicles out of sight of the front doors, and keeping uniformed officers out of sight would have been wise. In a parking lot full of cars, this would not have been difficult. Calling in plainclothes personnel such as detectives or administrators would have also been wise if time permitted.

The next (in fact, a continuing) concern should have been knowing where Scott was and exactly what he was doing. As a field training officer, I always taught my trainees to, whenever possible, observe an animal in its natural habitat for a time before interacting with it. The officers should have identified Scott, kept their presence concealed and watched him for as long as possible. Absent an active shooter situation, which this clearly was not, this is almost always the smart thing to do. If, as this situation clearly indicated, Scott was unaware of the police and was showing every intention of simply walking to his vehicle, they should, while keeping him in sight, have allowed him to do just that. Why? To learn as much as possible about his state of mind and intentions through direct observation, to possibly locate his handgun, to minimize the possibility of a potential hostage situation and to separate Scott from the hundreds of customers streaming out of the store with him. Once Scott was in the parking lot, perhaps with many empty cars as a safer shooting backstop for errant rounds, only then should he have been confronted. Following this procedure would not only have been safer for the public, but would have allowed officers to maintain control of the situation, and to direct additional officers to keep citizens out of the line of fire as Scott was confronted.

A commenter suggested that Scott might have been brought under physical control by officers, and this is a possibility, but in order to work, the take down must have been a total surprise allowing Scott no time to react--as anyone might react to being rushed or grabbed by several people by surprise--before the officers could take physical control of him, identify themselves, and with luck, allow him to relax and be disarmed. This could have been a viable option, but again, allowing Scott to separate himself from the rest of the crowd before taking any action should have been high on the officer’s priority list. Unfortunately, what is known suggests strongly that the officers were completely surprised by Scott’s appearance at the door, and caught in the open, immediately drew down on Scott and began to yell conflicting orders.

Interestingly, Metro Capt. Patrick Neville has said that none of the customers were ever in danger from police fire as the three officers ensured that a pillar that supported a canopy was the backdrop for their fire. To observe that this is, again to be kind, fanciful, is an understatement. Such a pillar could have scarcely been much wider than, if as wide as, a human torso, and would likely have been made of concrete, structural steel, or some combination of the two. Rounds striking it would not have been absorbed, but deflected at unpredictable angles. The only possible way that such a construct could have served as even a dangerous backstop is if it was directly behind Scott in a straight line with the officer’s fire, which would have to place them actually closer than shoulder to shoulder as they fired in order to ensure that each missed round fired struck the pillar dead center at an exact right angle to minimize the risk of ricochet. This is, of course, practically impossible. God forbid that any of them were behind the others as they fired (the potential consequences of that should be obvious).

One of the larger problems for the police will be exactly how many rounds were fired, by whom, and where did each round come to rest? The police have acknowledged only seven rounds thus far and all were reportedly hits on Scott, none of which exited his body to strike anything else. At least one round, however, seems to have been a rather miraculous shot. As Update 3 pointed out, this kind of accuracy, while possible, is against the laws of probability. The idea that three officers, caught by surprise and engaging seconds later in a firefight would have the presence of mind to simultaneously pick out a pillar in the background, realize that it would serve as an appropriate bullet stop, and/or maneuver so as to place it at the termination of their line of fire, is utter, after the fact, dissembling nonsense. These issues should be pursued by the local media until they are convincingly and honestly answered or refuted.

Finally, for this update to an update, a commenter took exception to my assertion that we want police officers to be type A, adrenaline fueled personalities. Please allow me to elaborate. Police work has been said to be, quite accurately, 99% boredom and 1% sheer terror. Any police officer who will not admit to having been scared should be immediately suspect. All sane officers are, from time to time, scared. However, they are scared so often that they learn how to effectively control and channel that fear, that adrenaline that all humans experience as the fight or flight response to danger, or they leave police work. We do indeed want our police to be aggressive, apparently fearless, brave and assertive, but we expect them to be calm, rational, humane, analytical and right 100% of the time. Special forces soldiers must possess essentially the same personalities. They are commonly known as the quiet professionals. So it is with the police. They have an extraordinarily difficult job that makes extraordinary demands on them, demands that few human beings would want to experience or could handle. Yet, they know all of this and accept it. We honor them by demanding that they adhere to the highest standards of their profession and when we do not, we dishonor those who do.

Confederate Yankee will post Update 4 later in the week.

Witness in Scott Case May be Donor to D.A.

It is quite possible that the man in question is another Christopher Villareale entirely, or that the man who donated $500 to the District Attorney's re-election warchest just happened to be an eyewitness to Erik Scott's shooting at the hands of Las Vegas police.

If the latter, disclosure seems to be the order of the day, considering the high-profile and controversial nature of the coroner's inquest.

My One-and-Only Christine O'Donnell Post

It seems everyone else in the political blogosphere has turned out their opinion of the Delaware Republican Senate Primary, and is now furiously focusing the race purely upon the perceived merits or demerits of the Republican primary winner, Christine O'Donnell.

The primary race itself was something of a litmus test, pitting O'Donnell, who professes to be a conservative, against well-known and generally popular moderate Republican Mike Castle. Reform-minded Tea Party purists gravitated to O'Donnell. Many others embraced polling data that suggested the moderate Castle would win in a walk over Chris Coons, the nearly sacrificial Democratic candidate.

The in-fighting on the right was intense as bloggers and pundits chose up sides, pulling readers this way and that with both well-reasoned and occasionally absurdly emotional arguments for and against their preferred candidate.

In the end, Delaware's voters made the decision to risk a near lock of a Republican pick-up (Castle) in favor of a much more risky, but theoretically more ideologically pure conservative (O'Donnell).

I'll respect the decision of Delaware's Republican primary voters. They made the choice to give up an easy victory with a perceived RINO in favor of a much tougher battle with an untested, under-vetted, and inexperienced conservative option. That takes both guts and faith, and considering the nation's growing anti-establishment movement, it could be a bet that pays off.

Now, would I have voted for Christine O'Donnell if I was a Republican Primary voter? Honestly, I don't think that I would have.

O'Donnell may end up winning the general election against Chris Coons and go on to be a successful conservative senator, but I don't see that as being a likely outcome. For starters, I rather suspect that the demographics and voting history of Delaware strongly favors Coons. It will be a surprise to me if O'Donnell beats him, but then, few gave her a chance of making it this far.

But even if she wins, I don't think O'Donnell would turn out to be a "Tea Party senator." I suspect this will come as a shock to many of her new supporters.

Everything in the candidate's personal biography paints the portrait of committed social conservative, but I see nothing in Christine O'Donnell's personal or professional biography to suggest that she is any better at all than Mike Castle on fiscal matters. As a matter of recorded history, her personal finances are a study of incompetence, blame-shifting, ethically questionable and fiscally irresponsible decisions.

So if I was a Delaware Tea Partier, Republican, Independent, or moderate Democrat, I would have an interesting choice to make in November. Do I hold my nose and chose the lightweight and apparently vindictive socialist in Chris Coons, ensuring that Senate Democrats have an assured "yes" vote for every big government entitlement scheme and tax increase they can dream up? Or do I chose the eccentric born-again virgin who can't seem to balance a checkbook or hold a job of her own? Frankly, I could understand why some Delaware votes might chose to stay home November 2nd, or at least skip over the Senate race.

From where I sit, however, it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils, if only to avoid the greater evil gaining power. The last thing Delaware needs is another big government liberal like Chris Coons to join his economy-wrecking fellow Democrats in the Senate.

Christine O'Donnell should be your vote for Senator from Delaware, if only as a preventative measure.

If It's Rampant Voter Fraud...

...it must be Democrats. And you can smell it all the way to the Obama Administration.

Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Steve Caddle, who also works for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.

Caddle told local newspapers that there "had been mistakes made," and he said he had fired 30 workers for filing defective voter registration applications. He could not be reached for this article.

The SEIU are, of course, Obama's brownshirts, and have specialized in intimidation and corruption. Their leader, Andy Stern, was Obama's top visitor to the White House.

Stern resigned from SEIU several months ago. Does anyone know if he's allowed to play with matches?

And yes, that is the same Houston district where the fraud is so rampant. Dead and fraudulent Democratic voters can be expected to turn out in droves November 2nd, across the country.

The question is whether enough real voters who are tired of these games turn out to assure that this fraud goes for naught. As the saying goes, "if it ain't close, they can't cheat."

The Erik Scott Shooting: Update 3

Since the second update, many interesting developments have come to light and many questions have been answered, or at least, more informed suppositions can reasonably be made. However, complete and accurate original source videos and audio and transcripts are still not available, making accurate analysis difficult. Sadly, far too many of the details remain unknown, and perhaps, purposely or even criminally so. In update four of this series, I’ll get into more specific analysis of an audio/transcript of the initial 9-11 call from Costco security employee Shai (pronounced “Shay”) Lierley to a metro dispatcher, and will try to synchronize a partial transcript of police radio traffic to that 9-11 call to produce a more complete picture of events. This update, the third, will deal primarily with analysis of Inquest testimony and related issues.

Readers commenting on the first two installments have raised concerns about the relative veracity of police officers and lawyers in interpretation of the issues relating to this case. Each has an important role to play in the criminal justice system, and sometimes, those roles overlap, to the discomfort of all involved. Perhaps it would be useful to address an issue that will become more important as the case goes on: The relationships of lawyers--defense and prosecutorial--with the police.

Police attorney relationships are far more complex than one might imagine, and seldom anything like those depicted on TV police dramas. Describing them as love/hate relationships might be a good baseline for further consideration. Attorneys generally consider themselves to be more educated and thus, more intelligent than police officers who by comparison often have no higher education. While more and more police agencies are requiring at least an associate’s degree (two years of college), a substantial portion of American police officers have only a high school education.

This is not, in and of itself, a bar to excellence in law enforcement. In many ways, excellent officers are born with a particular set of genetic endowments that give them distinct and obvious advantages over others regardless of their respective amounts of higher education. Simply put, some people are just born better capable of excelling in some jobs than others. While a reasonable argument can be made that an undergraduate degree has the potential to produce a well rounded individual with a broad base of potentially useful knowledge, common sense and street smarts tend to trump a bachelor’s any day in police work. At the same way, law schools produce graduates with a very wide range of practical abilities. Abraham Lincoln, for example, was known as an outstanding lawyer, but spent not a day in law school.

Some attorneys find it difficult to see police officers as professionals, looking down on them in very real ways. Police officers tend not to respond well to condescension, and this can lead to real tension in the relationships between officers and prosecutors in particular. It should not be assumed that prosecutors are automatically friends and colleagues of the police, and it should surely not be assumed that they will, always and in every case, support or cover for the police. This makes perfect sense if a given prosecutor believes officers to be lower than him or herself on the evolutionary ladder.

However, it can almost always be expected that defense attorneys will have an adversarial relationship with the police. The old maxim stands true: If the law and the facts are on your side, argue the law and the facts. If not, attack the police. Lawyers on all sides are supposed to seek justice above all, but some defense attorneys are predisposed to believe that the police are dim witted perjurers and brutalizing racists, and feeling the system thereby stacked against themselves and their clients, sometimes cut corners to try to even the playing field that they perceive is tilted in the prosecution’s favor. Such male lawyers often wear ponytails. Go figure.

It may also be useful to consider that most attorneys are not, in fact, expert in the Constitution and the law as it applies to the criminal justice system (as in medicine, lawyers generalize or specialize), and that many police officers may often have more practical knowledge of specific statutes, procedures and methods than many attorneys. In my final police assignment, I was a detective specializing in stalking and the burglary of vehicles. In that role, I of necessity learned a great deal about the related statutes, court precedent relating to search and seizure, psychology, the applicable insurance statutes and many other esoteric bits of knowledge. Knowing this, prosecutors--and sometimes defense attorneys--often asked questions about where to find specific statutes, their interpretation and application and related issues. I doubt that any of them considered me a law enforcement Einstein (nor did I), but they were practical enough to consult a useful, available source. Wise men know and accept, above all, what they don’t know.

With this in mind, can any meaningful conclusions be drawn from the apparent relationship of the Las Vegas prosecutors and the Metro Police? Can reasonable inferences be made based on the performance of the police and prosecutors in the Coroner’s Inquest and the eventual verdict? Indeed they can.

GENERAL IMPRESSIONS OF THE INQUEST TO DATE (09-24-10):

Scott has been overwhelmingly portrayed by prosecutors as a drug addict so badly and visibly impaired by drugs that he was prostrating himself on check out conveyors, throwing merchandise about the store, threatening and alarming staff and customers, and who, when confronted by police, drew and pointed a weapon at them, causing them to immediately shoot him seven times, according to Dr. Alane Olson a medical examiner with the Las Vegas Coroner’s Office. Two rounds initially fired by Officer William Mosher struck Scott in the chest, and five fired by Officers Joshua Start and Thomas Mendiola, struck him from the rear, including one that entered Scott’s buttocks, traversed his bowels and lodged in his chest. These five bullets, but particularly the bullet that entered Scott’s buttocks, will figure prominently in the future. Olson also testified that Scott had “lethal levels” of Morphine and Xanax in his blood.” However, several witnesses contradicted the prosecution’s tone and theory. Because no cross examination of witnesses was allowed, it’s difficult to tell with certainty if these statements were an unexpected and unwelcome surprise to the prosecutors or were included in an attempt to provide the appearance of balance to the televised proceedings.

SOME EXAMPLES OF TESTIMONY SUPPORTING THE PROSECUTION THEORY:

Arlene Houghton, a cashier, said Scott lost his balance and “tumbled onto a checkout conveyor belt, ” and that Samantha Sterner, Scott’s girlfriend, propped him up on a shopping cart. Houghton said Scott’s face was flushed, his eyes unfocused and glassy. “He turned around and looked at me and said, ‘I guess I really am (expletive)-up,’ and they walked away.”

Cashier John Nikitas said Scott knocked over a sign. “He told the lady with him, ‘I told you I should not be in this effing place when I’m this drunk.’”

Coleen Kullberg, a part time Costco employee was leaving the store and saw Scott staring at an officer who told him to get on the ground “at least five times.” She said “he reached behind him and pulled out his gun and aimed it at the officer...at that time the officer shot him.” Kullberg described Scott, just prior to being shot: “He was like dazed. He was just looking at him. He wasn’t obeying any of his commands.”

Security Officer Shai Lierley and Assistant Manager Vince Lopez spoke with Scott separately and told him that his gun wasn’t allowed. According to Lopez, Scott became “extremely agitated,” and told Lopez “...it’s a (expletive)-up policy and he continued to say he was a Green Beret, he could carry a gun wherever he went, and he wasn’t going to put up with that.” Lopez also testified that Scott imitated a gun with his hand, put it to Lopez’s head and said that if someone really did that, he would take care of the situation.

Customer Annette Eatherton saw Scott, being confronted by the officers, reach for his waist, and heard an officer say, “‘don’t do that, don’t do that,’ and he did it and they shot him.” After the first shot, Eatherton saw a gun in a “gun rug” fall to the ground in front of Scott. Annette’s husband Wentworth gave similar testimony but thought that Scott was trying to disarm, not shoot.

SOME EXAMPLES OF TESTIMONY CONTRADICTING THE PROSECUTION THEORY:

Edward Fishman heard an officer order Scott to “drop it,” and heard no other commands. He could not see anything in Scott’s hands and saw Scott reach toward his side, his shirt came up, and he was shot. Fishman did not see or hear Scott take an aggressive stance, point anything at the officer, or say anything. Fishman, a physician, said that after being shot, Scott’s hands were above his head before he fell to his knees and then face down on the ground. Fishman did not see anything drop from Scott’s hands or anything on the ground near him.

Fishman watched an officer handcuff Scott, but no one checked his pulse. Fishman testified that he was so shocked and surprised that none of the officers did anything to help Scott that he was to afraid to approach and ask to assist.

Customer Wendy Wolkenstein saw an officer with his gun drawn confront Scott outside the store. The officer was yelling at Scott to get down on the ground. Herding her children behind cover, she saw Scott’s elbow move back toward his waist or pocket and the officers fired. Looking back at Scott, she saw his hands in the air. She did not hear Scott say anything to the officers, but his back was to her.

Scott’s girlfriend, Samantha Sterner, did not testify, possibly on the advice of her attorney, who told the media that she was anxious to testify, but not in a one-sided forum. Prosecutors instead played a recording of her statement to police made after the shooting.

Sterner told the police that Scott was acting normally and his interaction with Costco employees was “amicable,” though she said she wasn’t present for all of those interactions. She did tell Scott, as they walked toward the exit that he was probably the reason for the evacuation, and he seemed “surprised.” Sterner saw an employee point out Scott to a uniformed officer as they stepped outdoors.

“He (Officer William Mosher) immediately draws his weapon and tells him to get on the ground,” Sterner said, adding that Scott put his hands up, intending to disarm. Sterner screamed at the officers that Scott was in the military and had a concealed weapons permit. She told them not to shoot, but when Scott raised his shirt to reveal the gun and “...grabbed it to put it on the ground...”Mosher fired. Sterner believes that Mosher “...was too aggressive...” and believes he would have fired no matter what Scott did. "I just think that this officer was out of line,” she said.

TESTIMONY OF SCOTT'S PERSONAL PHYSICIANS:

Dr. Joseph Gnoyski did not believe that Scott was a drug seeker and took drugs to deal with pain, the treatment of which is Gnoyski’s speciality. He testified that Scott had a physiological dependency, and that over time, he was getting better. Of the three testifying physicians, only Gnoyski testified to ordering an MRI or similar diagnostic test for Scott. The MRI indicated that he did have back damage, which Gnoyski attributed to a “paratrooping accident,” “a football accident,” and “a more recent automobile accident.”

Gnoyski said “This guy [Scott] works out every day. It’s not like he is seeking a buzz just to lie around...I don’t believe this man was trying to get a buzz...It just doesn’t mesh with his character.” Gnoyski described Scott as an "elite athlete."

During a casual visit to his office, Gnoyski felt that Scott appeared groggy. “It wasn’t like he was out of control, that he was going crazy.” Gnoyski drafted a letter to terminate their relationship, but changed his mind. Gnoyski said “I have a lot of respect for him.”

Dr. Shari Klein treated Scott for about two years, until about ten months prior to the shooting. Klein testified that Scott, at some point, suggested that she prescribe Hydrocordone, but she did not prescribe that particular medication. She said that Scott stopped seeing her when she began a concierge practice (where a physician sees a limited number of patients, charging substantially more for the individual treatment) and he could no longer afford her.

Dr. Daniel Kim testified that he began treating Scott on 02-02-10 for chronic pain. Kim prescribed medication but felt that Scott was taking too much: “He doubled up everything that I gave to him.” Kim, who felt that Scott had an addiction to Hydrocordone, terminated Scott and gave him a list of detoxification centers. Kim would not agree that interactions with Scott led to Scott’s being shot but thought that he might have more forcefully suggested detoxification.

TESTIMONY ANALYSIS: This testimony attempts to portray Scott as a man so under the influence of drugs that he could barely stand, yet he also reportedly said that he was drunk, though the sources consulted for this article did not mention the presence of alcohol in Scott’s blood. Significant in the testimony of the doctors is the absence of the common behavior of drug addicts who try to trick multiple doctors to simultaneously prescribe large amounts of narcotic medications. Scott apparently sought out medical treatment for intractable pain, which was actually physiologically based, and worked with single physicians in turn.

Most witnesses testified that Scott not only did not respond to officers, but drew his weapon and pointed it at the officers, though one saw only an elbow moving toward Scott’s back and saw Scott’s hands “in the air” moments after being shot. Officer commands heard by witnesses range from “don’t do that; don’t do that,” to “get on the ground,” and “drop it,” but no clear picture was drawn of the time frame or circumstances, including which of the three officers made these statements or why.

Only one of the witnesses saw a gun “in a gun rug” fall to the ground. The others did not see a gun or see Scott point a gun at the officers. According to police testimony and a photograph produced at the Inquest, Scott’s .45 ACP 1911 type handgun at some point and in some way, made it to the ground somewhere near him and was photographed by police, reportedly where it was found. The weapon displayed in the photograph was still fully in its inside the waistband holster, cocked and locked (the most common method for carrying this type of handgun, with the safety apparently still on. What is most interesting is that the holster completely enclosed the trigger guard and trigger of the weapon on both sides of the frame. In order for Scott to have fired the weapon, he would have had to push his trigger finger between the leather, which was still likely tightly molded to the frame of the weapon, and the frame, snap off the safety--which was also at least partially, possibly fully, covered by the holster--with his thumb, or more likely, would have had to remove the holster, which would have taken a very emphatic and forceful downward flinging motion if made one handed, or most likely, would have required that Scott grasp the holster with his left hand to pull it from the handgun. Either option would have taken very obvious movements and time, time which Scott was not afforded. None of the witnesses testified to this. The testimony to date seems to support Sterner’s contention that Scott, surprised and trying to respond to conflicting commands delivered simultaneously and in a matter of seconds, was trying to disarm.

What is also missing from the media accounts is any time frame. A man removing a weapon to disarm himself does not move with the speed and obvious intent of a man trying to bring a muzzle on target to fire, yet there has been apparently no attempt by the prosecution to clarify this point. One might argue that an officer cannot be expected to tell the difference between a holstered, safed handgun being voluntarily surrendered and an unholstered handgun being brought rapidly, aggressively onto target, but this kind of situation is common in shoot/don’t shoot training and officers are expected to be well trained and calm enough to take the few fractions of a second necessary to be sure before firing. It is not easy, but no one is forced to become a police officer.

What is also remarkable is that while the prosecution and police have acknowledged the firing of seven rounds and at least generally accounted for the final resting places of those rounds, there has been no statement about the possible firing of additional rounds and where they came to rest. This is significant in that studies have uniformly found that in officer shootings, commonly less than 30% of rounds fired by officers strike their intended targets. Are we to understand that these three officers fired only seven rounds, and that all seven were hits? This would be particularly amazing if any of the rounds were fired after Off. Mosher’s original two rounds struck Scott in the chest. At that point, Scott fell to his knees and then onto his face, which presents another significant problem for the police and prosecution.

At the time of the shooting, Off. Moser, 38, had been working for LV Metro for approximately five years and one month. Media accounts have not indicated if he had prior law enforcement experience, but do speak of his involvement in one prior police shooting. This is also significant, but more on this shortly. Off. Joshua Stuart, 28, had been with Metro approximately one year and 11 months. Again, I’m unaware of any prior police experience. Off. Thomas Mendiola, 23, had been with Metro approximately one year and four months. Considering his age, it would have been unlikely that he had any prior police experience as 21 is the minimum age for police service virtually everywhere.

We do not, as yet, know exactly where the officers stood relative to Scott, or their distances from him at the time each shot was fired. Did they remain stationary until shooting ceased, or were they moving as they fired? We still do not know why they fired after Mosher’s initial two shots. Most disturbing, however is the improbability of Scott taking five rounds in the back under the currently known circumstances. The only reasonable scenario presented by the evidence known to the public is that Scott was facing all three officers who were also facing him. We can assume that the officers, two of whom had little apparent time on the job (this is a significant issue--ask any experienced cop), may have tried to move to one side or the other, remembering basic tactics, but all were likely oriented facing Scott, with one or two perhaps at a slight angle to his sides. All the testimony indicates that after the initial two shots, Scott dropped to his knees and then, fell forward, toward the officers, onto his face. Struck twice in the heart, he was likely rapidly bleeding out internally, and rapidly dropping blood pressure may have rendered him more or less immediately unconscious.

How then is it possible that he took five additional rounds in the back, and who fired them? Did any of the officers very quickly move around Scott, placing Scott between himself and his fellow officers? Did they fire while he was falling, or more likely, only after he was already face down? The Medical Examiner testified that she could not tell the distances from the muzzles of any of the shots, nor do media accounts reveal the tracks of any of the rounds, with one exception.

It is reasonable to believe, particularly with the unusual, one might say, phenomenal quality of the marksmanship displayed by the officers that they were quite close to Scott, which is, in and of itself, very significant. Let’s assume for the sake of an experiment that Scott is face down, his head toward the officers. Pace off ten or twelve feet--the width of many rooms in many homes--and, placing a friend, or if you’re a bit squeamish, a pillow, on the floor in Scott’s position relative to the officers, and point your imaginary handgun at the target. At even that distance, the human back is a small, hard to hit target and any rounds fired would travel downward, likely lodging in the pelvis, buttocks, or even the thighs. In any case, the bullet tracks would be at a steep angle and would traverse a great deal of the body unless they struck large bones. Moving closer to the target, notice how the angle changes, until, standing over the body, the target becomes much, much easier to hit--the distance from muzzle to body being two feet or less--and the bullets would traverse the body at an approximate right angle.

For the prosecution’s theory, however, the most vexing problem is the bullet that entered Scott’s buttocks, traversed his pelvis and lodged in his chest. Unless the muzzle of the handgun that fired the round was near the ground when the round was fired, it’s hard to imagine how this could have occurred unless the officer was not only behind Scott when the round was fired, and thus had placed Scott between himself and the other officers--a virtual circular firing squad all officers are taught to avoid at all costs--but was also diving to the ground or on the ground at the time. One other possibility is that the round was fired by a standing officer, and the bullet, striking the pelvis or spine, was deflected on an internal path parallel with Scott’s prone body, but the ME did not so testify, and the problem of how an officer, in what was a mere handful of seconds, was able to maneuver into a position that would make any of this possible still exists.

Off. Mosher’s reported prior shooting, which was apparently found to be justified, is of interest because the overwhelming majority of police officers complete their careers without having fired their weapons at anyone. Thus, the officer who has had to shoot a suspect on even one occasion is, in most police agencies, unusual. An officer who has shot two or more, in a short span of years, is even more unusual. This does not in and of itself prove wrong doing on the part of such an officer. Perhaps he was merely unlucky. Perhaps he worked in high risk areas, or in an assignment that made violent confrontations more likely. But the fact that this was Off. Mosher’s second shooting should cause anyone investigating this case to be extra careful to pay attention to detail, as should any prosecutor charged with reviewing the case in making a charging decision because thankfully, Off. Mosher is in an exclusive class among American police.

Some commenters have suggested that police officers look for opportunities to shoot citizens in a soft of bizarre initiation rite. Thankfully, the statistics, and experience, do not bear this out. Indeed, officers wonder how they will perform in a deadly force encounter, perhaps even hope that they might have the chance, but there is nothing sinister in this. In fact, they are repeatedly confronted with this issue in employment interviews and training. They have to consider such issues and be willing to run to, rather than away from, the sound of gunfire. Any officer who has asked him or herself whether they can and will fire at another human being, possibly taking their life, if necessary, and who has not answered firmly and affirmatively, is a danger to them self and the public. Officers are comforted by the knowledge that the odds are on their side; it is unlikely that they will ever find themselves in that situation. Still, type A, adrenaline fueled personalities--and in many respects, that’s who we want for police officers when maniacs intent or rape or worse are breaking into our homes--will wonder, and anticipate and train hard to be prepared if the worst ever comes to pass. That is what we pay them to do. And they will pray that they do the right thing and go home that night when their shift is done.

One of the fundamental questions in this case is whether any Costco employee actually asked Scott to leave the store and if so, his response to that request. It is reasonable to believe that if anyone representing Costco had asked Scott to leave at any time, the police would have noted it and the prosecutor would have been sure to secure such testimony, but thus far, this does not seem to be the case. Considering the very negative thrust of the other evidence presented to Scott’s detriment, if such evidence, of an angry, armed man refusing a lawful order to leave the premises existed, surely it would have been made public at the inquest, but it has not.

Also interesting is the exclusive testimony secured by Confederate Yankee regarding Scott’s character by a competitor of Scott’s. This testimony, which was not produced during the Inquest as the witness fears Metro and prosecutorial reprisal, does not support the negative character sketch drawn by the prosecution.

As expected, no Costco or other video was presented at the Inquest. Recent information indicates that the police will claim that all of the Costco video from every camera that might have captured an image simply does not exist due to an technical malfunction known to Costco before the event which was not corrected until after the event. While this is possible, one would surely be forgiven for questioning the convenience--for the police--of this kind of coincidence, particularly when such video has the potential to unambiguously resolve the central issues in the case. Whether any police recordings exist may never be known. At the very least, media outlets may be able to provide footage which indicates whether any police vehicles potentially equipped with video were pointing toward the area of the shooting. Most police video cameras are focused through the windshields of patrol cars. If it can be established that any police vehicles were pointed in that direction, the possibility of police video exists.

A quick side note in response to several posters: The criminal justice system is often behind times in adopting standards of evidence that reflect the latest, greatest technology. In all matters of evidence, original sources and items are virtually the universally required standard, though judges do usually have some flexibility in interpreting the related statutes. However, that interpretation will almost always take place long after evidence is gathered. The police will reasonably believe that they are required to gather original materials and sources unless they are absolutely certain that copies will suffice.

The potentially missing video remains, at the very least, a public relations disaster for the police, and one which may not go unnoticed by local political leaders. The Law Vegas Review-Journal reported on 09-25-10 that Clark County Commissioners were concerned by the “skewed” proceedings and would form a committee to review potential changes in the Inquest system to allow a more adversarial approach more likely to expose all of the relevant facts necessary to produce a fair result. In response, prosecutors said that in a more adversarial hearing, “police officers might not testify.” This should be cause for real public concern in that any prosecutor knows that officers have no choice about such matters and are required by law to testify. Officers know this too. In fact, prosecutors routinely issue subpoenas mandating the appearance of officers at even routine hearings. This should be a matter of concern for Las Vegas residents as it may indicate that the prosecutors involved hold a low opinion of the intelligence of the public or may care little for what the public thinks. Yet at the moment, at least the potential for limited reform may exist.

Another bit of missing video, or potentially photography, is images of the merchandise allegedly strewn all over Costco by Scott. Several store employees have testified that Scott was so deranged that he was, in a virtual frenzy, ripping open merchandise and actually throwing it in all directions. If this was so, and to the degree suggested by Costco employee testimony, surely the police photographed it? Yet no media account of which I am aware mentions such evidence. It is another interesting coincidence that if the police did not record such potentially meaningful evidence, all internal and external Costco store video for that time is also apparently lost.

So it would appear that the prosecutors and the police are indeed on the same page in this case. Whatever animosity they might bear toward each other is being put aside and a common front presented. What is the significance of the apparent approach of the police and prosecutors to date? Even if one accepts their theory that Scott was a drug addict and an aggressive gun nut intent on carrying a gun wherever he wanted, who, through gross drug-induced impairment, brought about his own death, all of this should rightfully be nothing more than mitigating evidence that might have some bearing on the severity of a charge to be brought against the officers, or to be considered only after a potential future conviction as mitigating factors relating to sentencing.

What still remains is what the officers knew or reasonably could have known or inferred at the time they confronted Scott at the main entrance of Costco and made the decision to pull the trigger. It is this event, compressed in time, that should be the prosecutor’s foremost concern. Scott’s life history and his physical and mental health status could have, in at least some way, put him on a collision course with the police that day. But the ultimate question is whether they, knowing nothing about Scott but what they heard on the radio on the way to Costco, and apparently finding themselves surprised when a Costco employee suddenly pointed out a man they had never before seen, were justified under the law by his actions in the handful of seconds before they fired at least seven rounds into him. Under this, the only standard that truly matters, the evidence presented at the Inquest does not yet tend to favor or conclusively exonerate the police.

IN THE NEXT UPDATE, NUMBER 4: The 9-11 call and a partial radio transcript are meshed and analyzed.

Note: The primary sources for this article were the Las Vegas Sun and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Exclusive: Another Character Witness for Erik Scott

Irrelevant character assassination seems to be the order of the day at the Erik Scott inquest as we go through the third day of the process. Prosecutors have spent the the first days of the inquest talking about everything but the actual facts of shooting. Quite frankly, there is little chance that this farce can end with justice being served. There have been at least 200 inquests there since 1976, and none have led to the criminal prosecution of a police officer.

Not surprisingly, the prosecutor's attempting to portray Scott as a violent drug addict runs completely counter to the way friends and co-workers characterized the West Point and Duke MBA grad.

In an exclusive to Confederate Yankee we have the testimony of someone who claims to have been one of Erik Scott's business rivals. I think we'd all be thrilled to have our rivals speak of us in such glowing terms.

Unlike many who've come to their own opinions on the unfortunate episode, I knew Erik Scott. I competed with him, directly, in medical device sales for two years before moving on to another surgical specialty. Less than two months before his tragic death, he reached out to me regarding openings in my field and I was only too happy to oblige him. Competitors and doctors, alike, respected him and I can't recall a negative word being uttered against him. To my knowledge, he was a go-getter and never demonstrated any of the erratic behavior his ex-girlfriend seems inclined to attribute to him. In short, while I hope for justice's sake that the police responded properly to what they construed as a dangerous situation, I find it difficult - in the extreme - to believe Erik pulled his weapon and pointed it at an officer. The rumors I've heard regarding the incident involve him gesturing - hands held overhead - in a manner to acknowledge firearm possession in his "fanny pack." He was, indeed, a large and well-muscled man who could have provoked fear in lesser trained individuals, but it seems more than improbable to me that he'd draw his weapon in such a scenario. As anyone who's lived in Las Vegas for some time could tell you, law enforcement may tolerate the lesser "BS" from irresponsible tourists, but the serious business is met with a decidedly different edge. I'd be comforted to find I'm wrong about this and that the Erik's death, while tragic, was largely his own responsibility. But I fear this is not the case. The dearth of video surveillance footage from one of the highest volume, best-located Costco retail locations in greater Las Vegas strains credulity. As a weekly shopper at that very location, this incident strikes close to home in more ways than one.

I've withheld this character witnesses name by request, as he rightly fears a potential backlash from a suspect law enforcement community in Las Vegas. It is worth noting, however, that this statement is far more in line with the statements of those who knew Erik Scott the best than the character being created during the inquest.

Our Racist Executive Branch

I read Christopher Coates' prepared testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights early this morning, and was able to watch several minutes of the proceedings (still being broadcast live) during lunch.

It is beyond infuriating to read and listen to this testimony, and realize that our Department of Justice, with the blessing of the Attorney General and White House, explicitly condoned racism, providing that racism was directed at whites by minorities.

Officials involved in this scandal should resign in embarrassment, but they seeming blinded to their own racism, thanks to how their thought processes have been warped by their political ideology.

Law must be enforced equally, and justice meted out impartially for our Republic to function. The purposeful inequality forced with the Department of Justice requires nothing less than the targeted firings of all involved.

If this does not occur, we have ceased to be a nation ruled by law.

Unfit to Lead

Asking a comedian to perform, in character, in front of a Congressional committee is just the latest example of why Democrats are incapable of leading this nation.

Stephen Colbert seemed more than willing to prove that point:

Stephen Colbert's routine as a Republican commentator on his hit TV show might leave millions of his fans laughing every night, but he failed to amuse lawmakers Friday during a House panel hearing on farm jobs and illegal immigrants.

Colbert stayed in character during testimony as he made light of his experience working for one day as a farm worker.

"America's farms are presently far too dependent on immigrant labor to pick our fruits and vegetables," he said. "Now the obvious answer is for all of us to stop eating fruits and vegetables and if you look at the recent obesity statistics, you'll see that many Americans have already started."

While some audience members laughed, most the members of the House Judiciary subcommittee barely cracked a smile.

"This is America," Colbert continued. "I don't want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American, then sliced by a Guatemalan and served by a Venezuelan in a spa where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian."

I guess this is what we should come to expect from a Party led by a Hawaiian brought up in Indonesia that some feel is a Kenyan who has the economic views of a Cuban.

Just Words

Everybody and their mother is weighing in on the 21-page Republican Pledge to America. I'm sure it is faithfully edited, watered-down enough to avoid taking any too-controversial positions, and focused-grouped to death. But I could care less what it says.

It's just words.

I'm far more interested in actions.

The Hat Trick: How To Outreach America to Death

Bob Woodward has once again revealed—to whatever degree one is willing to credit Woodward for unerring accuracy and integrity—many disturbing actions and thoughts of an American president, but in this instance, it’s President Barack Obama. In excerpts from his soon to be released book, Obama’s Wars, published on Sept. 22 in the Washington Post and New York Times, Mr. Obama’s beliefs informing his performance as Commander in Chief are revealed much more clearly than Mr. Obama will likely find comfortable. In fact, he may well have written some of the most effective Republic campaign commercials for 2012.

Mr. Obama is well on his way to completing a Democratic hat trick of economic and foreign policy wreckage begun and carried out under the previous Democratic presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. But perhaps it would be useful to provide a brief reminder of the previous Democratic shots on goal of American financial stability and national security before updating Mr. Obama’s skills on the ice as America's economy goes into sudden death overtime.

Under Jimmy Carter, America engaged in feckless international moralizing to the detriment of American security and prestige. Recall, if you will, Mr. Carter’s gob smacked amazement at the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and his subsequent public admission that he finally began to realize that maybe the Soviet Union really wasn’t interested in buying the world a Coke and teaching it to sing in perfect harmony. And who can forget those halcyon days of 20% interest rates, runaway inflation and endless lines at the gas pumps where a few gallons of gas may or may not have been available? And who was not moved to tears when Mr. Carter sacrificed by turning down the White House thermostat and wearing a Mr. Rogers cardigan sweater as he brilliantly summed up all of American’s problems while simultaneously solving them with the penetrating insight that America was suffering from “malaise,” or was it mayonnaise? I forget; I’m still recovering from being penetrated by the insight.

But Mr. Carter’s greatest achievement was, without question, reawakening the global jihad, while simultaneously failing to recognize or do anything about it, by whacking our long time ally, the Shah of Iran, with the moral superiority stick, thus allowing the Islamic Revolution in Iran that resulted in the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Expert opinion is still out on whether that event, or the creation of ABC’s Nightline hosted by Ted Koppel was the more damaging calamity. But what is known is that after more than a year of outreach, understanding and moralizing, the Iranians released the hostages on the very day that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, and to the Iranians, seemed likely to continue Mr. Carter’s outreach by turning Iran into a glowing, steaming sheet of radioactive glass. This, finally, was outreach the Islamists could appreciate.

Thereafter, Americans learning that Mr. Carter made history as the only American President who served as a naval officer ever to be attacked while in his rowboat by a swimming rabbit, who may or may not have been a jihadist, were commonly heard to swear under their respective breaths and mutter, “sounds about right.” The Islamists, rabbits or not, did not forget, and having declared war on infidels and the Great Satan (that’s us, folks), set to work, never losing sight of their ultimate, long term goal of world domination.

After the horror of the Reagan and Bush years of American prestige, prosperity and genuine, as opposed to sloganeering, progress America was rescued, just in time to enjoy the benefits of the collapse of the Soviet Union, by the election of Bubbas Maximus, President Bill Clinton. Who can forget his many accomplishments, some made while actually wearing pants and/or with a zipped fly? Recall his televised address where he, with the most genuine faked sincerity, and the most emphatic finger wagging, delivered by an American President to that point in history, declared that he did not have sexual relations, with that woman…Miss Lewinsky? Of course, that depended on what the definitions of did, not, have, sexual, relations, with, that, woman, ellipsis, Miss and Lewinsky were. Linguists are still wrestling with the implications after all these years.

Mr. Clinton empowered our military and intelligence agencies by reinventing government. Of course, that reinvention consisted mainly of stealing their funds and mothballing assets, but hey, you have to break a few eggs to know what the meaning of “is” is. He really helped the CIA by, in an act of moral clarity not seen since Jimmy Carter took the moral superiority stick to the Shah, prohibiting CIA agents from dealing with anyone with a criminal record. Apparently Mr. Clinton had been informed by Democratic operatives that intelligence information could be best gathered by employing as intelligence assets nuns who are, after all, know for their close associations with terrorists and spies. Remember the inspired mirth of Mr. Clinton’s refusal to ever hold a one on one meeting with the Director of the CIA he appointed? And who didn’t double over with laughter when an attention seeking dullard--no, no, not Al Gore—crashed a small plane on the White House lawn spawning the joke that its pilot was the CIA Director trying to get a meeting with Mr. Clinton!

Mr. Clinton’s faux fondness for the military and his unswerving lack of attention to his duty as Commander in Chief was best chronicled by Lt. Colonel Buzz Patterson (USAF Ret.) who carried the nuclear football for Mr. Clinton in his books "Dereliction of Duty" and "Reckless Disregard," which titles do not refer to Mr. Clinton’s failure to pursue sexual adventures in or out of the White House, or under his desk, for that matter.

Who does not look back in fondness on Mr. Clinton’s establishing the precedent of treating Islamic terrorism, including the first World Trade Center bombing, as a criminal matter? Who cannot fail to chuckle at the loveable rogue’s serial refusals to take Osama Bin Ladin into custody when Bin Ladin was offered to him on a silver platter by foreign governments? Impeachment, perjury, sexual harassment and rape allegations were only a few of Mr. Clinton’s many, notable domestic accomplishments. And who can forget that immortal headline in "The Onion": “President Clinton to Feel Nation’s Pain, Breasts”?

Thereafter, Americans learning that Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton, upon leaving the White House, looted many of the furnishings (that is, the few remaining furnishings that weren't reduced to rubble by one of Mrs. Clinton’s many obscenity laced, paint peeling, chuck-everything-that-isn’t-nailed-down-at-the-President domestic outreach sessions), were commonly heard to swear under their respective breaths and mutter, “sounds about right.” The Islamists remained determined to dominate the world, responding to eight more years of Democratic outreach with their traditional, cheery greeting and salutation of: “Death to America!”

So great was the domestic and foreign policy success of Jimmy Carter (who has never ceased to miss an opportunity to remind Americans of just how magnificent he was and is while simultaneously actively working against American interests and the interests of our allies) and so darned loveable and roguish was the loveable roguishness of Bill Clinton that America had little choice but to elect another Democrat, in this case, the single most leftist Democratic Senator the republic had ever survived, on the platform of “hope” and “change” and raising the seas and healing Al Gore, or something.

Mr. Obama’s dedication to relentlessly clinging to every catastrophically destructive Democrat domestic and foreign policy ever imagined in the most fevered socialist brain seemed positively pedestrian in comparison to Mr. Woodward’s initial recitation of Mr. Obama’s priorities. Oh sure, we know that he considers NASA’s most important mission to be helping Muslims feel good about their scientific accomplishments, you know, like, centuries ago? Of course, we pretty much have to scrap the space program to provide the funds for this vital endeavor, but that's hope and change for you! We also know that when Iran responds to his outstretched hands with their traditional, heart warming “death to America!” Mr. Obama is only more determined to destroy America’s economy and to figure out how more effectively to avoid calling Islamic Terrorists Islamic Terrorists.

But who, pray tell, would even think, let alone say, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger,"? By that sort of logic, why should we bother to try to prevent the next attack, or even the next several? After all, would those attacks not make us stronger still? That a President of the United States actually believes this, and actually thought nothing of saying it to a reporter, should shake every American who actually believes in America, democracy and the survival of America and western civilization to their bones. Better still, it should motivate them, at every election up to and including 2012, to finally, once and for all, understand that Democrats cannot be trusted with the economy or national security (to name only two), and to vote for any Republican candidate, even a ham sandwich providing it's a Republican, or at least, not a Democrat.

One wonders what the survivors of the victims of 9-11 think of absorbing another 9-11? One wonders what the victims of those future attacks might think, or Americans who might very well become those victims, which would be potentially all of us. One wonders if Americans who learn that some 800 Americans were killed around the world by Islamists after the Iranian Hostage Crisis and before 9-11 would be surprised, so greatly have our Democrat Presidents lowered our expectations of presidential leadership and morality, particularly that of Democrats. One wonders what more we’ll learn about Mr. Obama’s actions and core beliefs, including his despicably political approach to war and our military already hinted at in the excerpts from Woodward’s book when it is released and read in its entirety? I suspect that Americans will be commonly heard to swear under their respective breaths and mutter, “sounds about right.” A hat trick indeed.

The Erik Scott Shooting: Update 2

Comments on the initial article have raised a number of questions that deserve clarification. Perhaps additional clarification of what I learned in my years as a police officer about the police and the world in which they live and work will be useful.

I am no more reflexively pro-police than I am anti-police. I am certainly, as a citizen, against official corruption of any kind. As a former police officer, I am more aware than most of the factors that might tend to corrupt individual officers and police organizations. The police are handicapped in that they are restricted to recruiting solely from the human race. As in all human endeavors, most cops are average, some are below average and some few are excellent. Most officers and agencies are honest and dedicated, taking seriously their oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution. Some, unfortunately, are not and do not. I have no first hand knowledge of the police of Las Vegas or their agency and its leadership. I just don’t know whether it’s an honest or corrupt organization or some mixture of the two. However, I, and others can draw reasonable inferences and conclusions about it from its observed behavior and actions while being always willing to be persuaded by additional facts.

It’s important to understand that line officers and administrative officers are often from two different planets. For working cops, most of the stress of the job doesn’t come from working with the public, but from working with other cops, particularly administrators. In competent, professional agencies, everyone works together as a team. In dysfunctional, corrupt agencies, paranoia and anger reign as everyone is locked in a constant struggle for favor, power and dominance. In such agencies, particularly in large cities, administrators tend to be hired for their political views and loyalties to elected officials rather than for their competence and loyalty to the Constitution and equal enforcement of the law.

It’s also important to keep in mind that in dysfunctional agencies, the worst traits of human nature, those formally and informally suppressed in competent agencies, tend to be manifested at every level. Among these are the tendencies to see life through an “us against them” lens, and to abuse power. The reality is that unless one is a police officer, it’s almost impossible to understand the pressures, professional and social, of the job. It’s not the kind of job that can be left at the office, ever. These pressures do tend to isolate cops from the general public. Good cops handle this rationally and calmly and don’t tend to view the public as the enemy while simultaneously understanding that there are inherent social issues. They also wield their authority, which is considerable, with restraint and humility. It may surprise many to learn that one of the hardest things for many new officers to learn is how to accept and properly use the inherent authority of their position. Most are not power hungry monsters dying to abuse the public and don’t yearn to misuse their authority.

No officer in a competent police agency wants to be involved in a shooting. Yes, it’s human nature to seek excitement, and many cops will admit to being adrenaline junkies, but they understand that the consequences of a shooting, no matter how legitimate, are severe and last a lifetime. They expect that they will be treated as criminal suspects—they do not for a moment expect that anyone will cover for their mistakes--and that even if a shooting is completely justified and no criminal charges result, they will almost certainly be sued by survivors of the victim who will be portrayed as a saint regardless of their actual background. Any officer who indicates a desire to get into shooting situations is a real concern for and danger toward honest, professional cops.

In dysfunctional agencies, it’s quite the opposite situation. Petty local politics can have an enormous effect on law enforcement. There are classes of local citizens who are essentially immune to arrest. Administrators tend to see officers as barely sentient troublemakers who must be tightly controlled to avoid mistakes. Officers resent the lack of trust and respect and are constantly, and wisely, looking over their shoulders. Weak people with few or no leadership skills and faulty knowledge and experience are appointed as supervisors because they are easy to control. Officers know that when someone complains about them—common no matter how good an officer is—they cannot know in advance if they’ll be fairly and professionally treated or thrown under the public relations bus. Does this sound like many dysfunctional workplaces? It should, but when you’re in a business that actually deals in life and death decisions on a daily basis, it’s rather more serious. Even in dysfunctional agencies, corrupt cops can never be entirely sure that their superiors won’t turn on them any second.

Regarding firearms, most working officers fully support the Second Amendment and have no difficulty with citizens carrying concealed weapons. Every competent officer understands that anyone they meet could be carrying a concealed firearm and acts accordingly, with reasonable caution appropriate to each situation. Police administrators, particularly those of large, urban agencies, tend to have exactly the opposite viewpoint. Some would be very happy to disarm the entire population if they could get away with it.

The fact that working police officers almost uniformly support civilian concealed carry, and deal with that issue—without violence--every day, makes the behavior of the Las Vegas Police even more puzzling. We still have no idea of the content of the 9-11 call that forged the first link of the chain that led to Erik Scott’s death, but for officers to act as they did, there are two primary possibilities: (1) They were acting under the impression that Scott was ready to start shooting any and everyone at any second, or (2) They were not in control of themselves and their weapons due to poor training, panic, malice, inexperience, or any combination of these and other factors. The possibility that Scott was a hair-trigger, raging bad guy who not only drew his weapon but pointed it at the police as police spokesmen have claimed cannot be absolutely discounted, but considering what is known at the moment, seems unlikely.

A number of those making comments have expressed concern about the taking of video resources from Costco. Implicit in some of their concerns is the idea that Costco should have adopted an adversarial stance with the police and required them to obtain a warrant. All issues relating to search and seizure of private property are governed by the 4th Amendment, which is explicit in the requirements for warrants, but which does not require a warrant for every search and seizure. This follows from the idea that individuals are protected from “unreasonable” searches and seizures and that there is, therefore, a class of searches which are inherently reasonable and do not require a warrant.

It should be kept in mind that Costco could have, if it wished, refused to turn over any recordings or devices. At that point, the police would have had two options: (1) Seize the recordings and devices anyway under an exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, or (2) Obtain a warrant. In order to pursue option one, the police would have to be able to show that unless they seized the materials immediately, there was a substantial risk that the evidence would be altered or destroyed. If one assumes that the officers in this case are acting to cover up criminal negligence, they would surely seize first and apologize later. A warrant in this case would surely have been issued by any judge and if the police had a legitimate fear of tampering while the warrant was being obtained, could have posted officers (a common practice)—it appears that there were more than enough present—to prevent such tampering until the warrant arrived, a process that would be expected to take an hour or less. However, most businesses want a good relationship with the police whether they consider the police to be corrupt or not as the police provide several valuable services for them. Costco likely did not think of objecting to the taking of the materials. If the police ask (I’m assuming they did) and the citizen agrees, no warrant is required. One can legitimately argue that Costco was acting against its own interests in willingly surrendering the materials, but in this case, the end result was a foregone conclusion and resisting would have only slightly delayed the seizure.

The issue is slightly more interesting in the case of a citizen who might have recorded events on a cell phone or video camera. The police would be able to argue with somewhat more plausibility that a citizen unknown to them, as opposed to long established business, would be more likely to damage or destroy evidence, and the same processes of seizing the materials would apply. Might a citizen make copies, post them on the Internet, even send them to their lawyers for safekeeping before turning video over to the police? Certainly, unless there is some specific statute that would address the issue, but that’s quite uncommon.

If police video cameras recorded the events, things become really interesting. If such video exists it has certainly been examined by the police in minute detail. However, absent specific court orders to produce such video, whether its existence is ever acknowledged is an open question. If one assumes that the police in this instance are carrying out a cover up, such video would only be acknowledged and made available if it unambiguously supported the police version of events. Suppressing even the knowledge of such video would in the very least constitute contempt of court, and probably, a crime in most states.

Another concern related to the officers shouting commands at Scott, and suggested that their commands were not intended to resolve the situation peacefully, but to confuse witnesses into supporting the police version of events.
There is a shred of truth in this idea, but not in the manner implied. Competent training in this facet of police work requires that one officer, and one alone, issue commands, and that the most effective command when the suspect is initially confronted is “don’t move.” Officers are told to do this loudly, clearly, and slowly giving the suspect sufficient time (which can be seconds) to process the command, if safety allows. This is done to control the situation and to minimize mistakes. Every officer understands that the clearer and more simple their commands and actions, the more likely witnesses are to correctly remember, and if the officers act professionally, this will benefit everyone. I need not mention that some officers are not professional and that some act in bad faith, cynically playing for onlookers the better to cover their malfeasance. I have to believe that readers can understand that the potential for bad, malicious behavior is present in any human endeavor, so I need not repeatedly offer it as a disclaimer. Based on many years of experience in similar situations, my best take on what actually happened is that three or more officers were likely so adrenaline fueled that they began yelling whatever came to mind and likely weren’t aware of what their fellow officers were yelling, if they heard anything other than their own voices at all. In these circumstances, I’ve seen officer’s voices raise an octave or two as they screamed mindless obscenities rather than rational commands at a suspect.

Yet another concern revolved around the police practice of handcuffing suspects they’ve just shot as soon as possible and leaving them restrained until, and possibly even after, it’s safe for medical care. Some were also concerned that the police apparently did not themselves try to treat Scott. Unless an officer is a certified EMT or paramedic, few if any police agencies will allow them to engage in medical treatment, particularly if other medical professionals are on the scene. This doesn’t mean that an officer would be required to withhold direct pressure to a badly bleeding wound or refuse to provide CPR, for example, but if an officer is providing medical treatment, he is not fulfilling his primary duties. It is also essential that suspects be restrained, even if they are not an immediately apparent threat. Human beings are amazingly resilient, and someone who appears unconscious one moment, may suddenly leap to their feet and inflict great harm on officers or medical personnel, even when mortally wounded. This does seem cold hearted, but to those who, like the Shadow, know what evil lurks in the hearts of men, and who have learned that lesson the hard way, it’s rational and necessary. If the police abuse this procedure, if they inflict unnecessary pain or unnecessarily delay medical treatment, they are reprehensible and criminally liable, but that does not invalidate the necessity or wisdom of this policy.

On the new development front, Scott’s father has posted extensively (http://erikbscottmemorialblog.blogspot.com/) on the drugs that would likely be found in Erik’s system. That any drugs at all were present will tend to be supportive of the police version of events, and will certainly be played that way by the police, and possibly some elements of the Las Vegas press. William B. Scott’s account indicates that Erik Scott suffered from spinal damage likely incurred during airborne training, which is certainly plausible, and that he was under treatment for intractable pain. As a younger man, I sometimes scoffed at those who suffered from debilitating neck and back injuries until, that is, I suffered a neck injury on the job. I scoff no longer as each turn of my head feel and sounds like a bag full of gravel. William Scott also suggests that the medications Erik was taking were all obtained by legitimate prescriptions. These assertions are easily proved or disproved through the testimony of his attending physicians. Whether the police rely on such direct, legitimate testimony or produce spin doctors, so to speak, to paint a differing picture may also help to clarify police intentions. The Coroner’s inquest is scheduled for this week in Las Vegas, and I’ll update what I can after that event, if it occurs.

Some have suggested that the police acted with malice aforethought, in other words, planned Scott’s killing before it occurred. I’ve suggested that the most serious charge might be manslaughter, which does not require such a demanding standard of proof. While it’s true that premeditation may be formulated in seconds before a criminal act, with what is known at the moment, it seems that the police may have acted negligently, but not with premeditated malice as specified in the language of most statutes, which would be necessary for a murder conviction in most jurisdictions. As the information available in this case currently stands, it remains most likely that this is a classic case of one error or misunderstanding after another building inexorably to an avoidable death.

Intellectual President: Mexicans Were Here Before the 57 States

For the life of me, I can't see why the media continues to try to portray Barack Obama as a scholar when he has proven time and again he has Blutarsky's view of history:

"Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land," President Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Mexico declared its independence on September 16, 1810. It was recognized on September 27, 1821.

The United States of America declared its independence in 1776.

The video at the link is just as dumb, but not nearly as impassioned as this intentional comedy classic (mildly NSFW-language).

I blame the teleprompter.

Analysis of a Death: The Erik Scott Shooting

First, My thanks to Bob Owens, proprietor of Confederate Yankee for his invitation to guest blog on the site. I look forward to contributing essays in the future and I have often commented in the past. By way of introduction, I'm a USAF veteran, having served in SAC as a security police officer during the Cold War. I'm also a veteran of nearly two decades of civilian police service, including stints as a patrol officer, trainer of officers, firearms instructor, shift supervisor, division commander, juvenile officer, detective and SWAT operator. I'm an NRA certified instructor and am also certified by the American Small Arms Academy, Chuck Taylor's school. These days, I teach secondary English and am a professional singer, working with a well known symphony orchestra and a variety of other musical endeavors. I'm looking forward to having the kinds of informed exchanges I've often enjoyed on the site. Mike McDaniel

The death of West Point graduate Erik Scott outside a Las Vegas Costco at the hands of Las Vegas Police officers, is at best, a tragedy. At worst, manslaughter.

First and foremost, understand that I am writing in response to articles I have read about the incident. Anyone how has achieved professional status in the criminal justice system will attest that it’s very difficult to make conclusive, correct judgments regarding cases about which they have no direct knowledge, as I, and virtually everyone writing about this case, do not. However, professional knowledge of policy and procedure might help others to better understand the issues surrounding such cases.

Costco’s Role/Liability: While Nevada law does allow “public buildings” to prohibit lawful concealed carry by posting signs, no such signs were posted at Costco. Any business can ask any customer to leave, but again, apparently no such request was made of Scott. Costco also has a duty to train and properly supervise their security employees, but because the police are refusing to release the 9-11 call, we have no idea what their security employee told the dispatcher or their tone in the telling. A competent security force would surely keep a potentially dangerous customer under surveillance until the police arrived, particularly if they felt they were as deadly dangerous as the police response would tend to indicate, yet at this point, it’s not known whether they watched Scott by actually having security people keep him in sight, by means of internal security cameras, or both. And competent security people would await the police (if for no other reason than because the police should have told them to do just that) and immediately direct the first arriving officers to the potentially dangerous person, but that apparently did not happen. It seems Scott and his girlfriend continued to shop until the general PA system announcement to evacuate, and having no reason to believe it related to them, tried to leave with everyone else. What is known also indicates that Scott and his girlfriend actually walked past several police officers who were presumably already inside the store before store security pointed him out as he exited the front doors.

Unanswered Questions/Issues:

(1) Was Scott actually, clearly asked to leave, and if so, did he refuse?

(2) What, exactly, did the security employee say to the 9-11 dispatcher, and how did he say it? Did the police respond appropriately, given what they knew at the time, or did they overreact?

(3) Did Costco security keep an eye on Scott after the initial contact, and if so, by whom and how? If such video shows a man and woman calmly shopping, that will be, to put it mildly, damaging for Costco and the police. On the other hand, if the video shows an angry, erratic, hostile man, another interpretation may be in order.

(4) Is there internal videotape of Scott and his girlfriend before, during and after the initial encounter, and external video of the shooting? According to Scott’s father, the police have made statements indicating that they have seized internal and external video, but that it won’t be usable--not a good sign. If it supported the officer’s stories, they would surely be glad to use it.

Scott’s Culpability: What, if anything, did Scott do wrong? Let’s assume that he was not, as at least some suggest, irrational, hostile and threatening, but merely a man with his girlfriend on a shopping trip. There is apparently considerable evidence to suggest that this was the case, not the least of which is the apparent reluctance of the police to produce video. Scott was legally carrying his weapon and had no reason to believe he, and it, were not welcome at Costco. While it is unfortunate that he inadvertently exposed it, the mere sight of a holstered firearm should not be unduly alarming, particularly in a state widely known to have concealed carry. Scott, once approached by the store employee, apparently acknowledged his concealed carry status, and not being asked to leave, was within his rights to remain. The police deal with reports of this kind all the time, everywhere in the nation, and certainly do not respond with the kind of numbers and types of officers present in this case. Usually, one or two officers merely observe the person from concealment for a few minutes, approach, ensure that they have a concealed carry permit, and everyone goes on their way. While the police must treat every call where the potential threat of violence is present as unique, not routine, a quick, peaceful resolution to this common call occurs almost all of the time.

We can “what if” ourselves silly. If Scott immediately left, he might still be alive today, but there is no way to know with certainty, particularly since the content of the 9-11 call remains unknown. The police response also makes the outcome less rather than more likely. The available evidence indicates that Scott and his girlfriend continued to shop until the PA announcement of evacuation, and upon leaving the store, were confronted by the officers who found him empty handed. It’s hard to imagine what, absent immediately leaving the store after being confronted by the employee who apparently did not ask him to leave, he might have done differently, and it seems clear that he did nothing illegal, at minimum. Of course, if he was truly hostile, erratic and angry, that may change things, but even then much would depend on exactly how he was acting, when and where, and toward whom.

The Police Role: It’s important to immediately clear up common misconceptions about police procedure and the use of deadly force. Officers must act on the knowledge they have at the time they are dispatched to a call (the role of dispatchers will be examined shortly), and/or must follow the orders of their superiors. Officers acting in good faith, as any reasonable officer would act in the same set of circumstances, if they are acting in accordance with the law and commonly accepted standards of training and police procedure, will usually be accorded a substantial degree of deference by prosecutors and judges. Officers must sometimes make decisions in fractions of a second that may have deadly consequences, and those split second decisions will be analyzed after the fact by those under no imminent threat and with months of time to render a verdict on an officer’s actions. That said, everyone involved, particularly officers, understand that this is their reality. They live it daily, and are responsible for making the right decisions. No one is forced to become a police officer. In a very real sense, they’re used to it and we pay them to be used to it and to keep their heads when all those around them are losing theirs. Quite simply, they are supposed to be able to properly handle deadly force encounters.

The use of deadly force by the police is widely misunderstood. Generally, officers may use deadly force to protect themselves or others where there is an imminent threat of seriously bodily harm or death and the person against whom force is to be used is in a position to carry out that threat. One common way to understand it is to employ three terms: Means, opportunity and jeopardy. Does the suspect have the means necessary to cause serious bodily harm or death, such as a gun or knife? Does he have the opportunity? If armed with a handgun, is it holstered under clothing, or in his hand, quickly rising onto target? If armed with a knife, is he fifty feet away, or five? And finally, is he placing the officer or another in jeopardy? Is he actually taking actions that would convince a reasonable police officer that the threat of serious bodily injury or death is imminent--it’s going to happen and happen in seconds--rather than potentially at some future time. Notice that the standard for decision making is a “reasonable police officer,” not a “reasonable citizen.” The courts have taken notice of the specialized training and experience of police officers and understand that they are better suited than most citizens to make such determinations, which is reasonable.

If means, opportunity and jeopardy are present, an officer is not limited to firing one round from a tiny caliber weapon, nor does he have any obligation to fire a “warning” shot or shots, or to shoot the suspect in the leg or hand, or to employ any other movie action hero cliche. In fact, virtually all police agencies specifically prohibit warning shots or shots intended to wound. This is true for two primary reasons: Officers are responsible for every shot they fire and officers always, always shoot to stop, not to wound or kill. They shoot to stop the suspect from completing whatever action gave the officer the legal justification to shoot in the first place. A warning shot or a shot in the hand or leg will likely leave the suspect able to severely injure or kill others. In fact, a warning shot or wounding shot might be construed in court to indicate that the officer believed that he really did not have legal grounds to use deadly force. The likely best stopping shot is to the brain stem or failing that, the brain, but as those are very small, difficult targets, officers are trained to aim for center mass, the vital organs in the chest. If the suspect dies as a result of being stopped, that matters not at all, legally speaking. And if an officer has the legal justification to shoot, he has the authority, and the responsibility to shoot as much as required to cause the action that gave him justification to shoot to stop. If that takes one round of 9mm ammunition, that’s good. If it takes ten rounds of .44 magnum ammunition, that too is allowed, indeed, it’s required.

Another additional misconception: Hollow point ammunition. The police carry hollow point ammunition because it tends to expand and expend all of its energy in the body rather than over penetrating and ricocheting in unpredictable ways. The military, under international treaties, cannot use hollow point ammunition, but in the military context, it’s better to wound rather than kill soldiers. A dead soldier takes one man out of the fight. A wounded soldier, three, as two of his comrades are required to carry him. Over penetration and ricochet are serious concerns for police officers, particularly in urban areas. While hollow point ammunition may indeed be more deadly when used against the innocent, it is far safer for the police and the innocent when used against the guilty. Fortunately, police shootings of the innocent are uncommon.

The problem is that many police officers have, at best, occasional and incomplete firearm training. Many law enforcement agencies require only annual qualification with courses of fire that are less than demanding. I know of a police officer who was made a sniper on a SWAT team who had never owned a firearm prior to becoming a police officer, in fact owned no firearms as a police officer, having only his department issued weapons, did not carry a handgun off duty, did not fire any weapon unless required to do so for training or qualification and had no precision rifle training whatever. The rationale for his appointment as a sniper remains a mystery. Police officers are not uniformly noted for excellent marksmanship in fire fights. In fact, there are many incidents on record in which officers emptied their weapons at distances at which they could reach out and touch the suspect, yet missed with every shot--as did the bad guys. I don’t suggest that this is true of all police officers, merely that wearing the uniform does not automatically confer magical shooting powers beyond those of civilians. Sometimes, it’s rather the opposite. What is often forgotten is that knowing when to shoot is, in many ways, far more important than knowing how to shoot, and training in this vital skill is also an iffy matter for many police officers. But one additional fact remains: At the moment the suspect has stopped offensive action, shooting absolutely must stop. Shots fired beyond that point are no longer authorized by law and may very well be criminal. Remember, however, that multiple shots may be fired in a deadly force encounter in mere seconds. Yet understand that the police know that these problems exist, should properly train for and are expected to be able to deal with them.

There are, based on what we know about this incident, several other pertinent issues. In any confrontation with a potentially armed suspect (other than those I’ve already outlined involving obviously peaceful citizens carrying concealed weapons), Officers should have their weapons in their hands, but those weapons should be in “low ready”: Trigger finger in register (off the trigger and in contact with the weapon’s frame), muzzle pointed roughly at the level of the suspect’s hips/lower abdomen. This is essential to prevent accidental discharges if the officer is startled or experiences an involuntary muscle contraction, both common results of extreme stress. It is also essential so the officer doesn’t have his arms and weapon in front of his face blocking his view of the suspect and their actions. If shooting is necessary, from ready an officer is in a position to bring his weapon on target with sufficient speed to end the threat, and is in the best position to understand if shooting is actually required and lawful.

It’s also vital that one--and only one--officer assumes the role of the sole giver of commands while at least one additional officer assumes the role of taking physical control of and securing the suspect, which, at some point requires them to holster and secure their weapons as they will be in actual contact with the suspect who might take control of their weapon. If more than one officer is yelling commands, the possibility of fatal mistakes is greatly increased. In fact, these procedures are taught in any competent basic academy tactics class, and are included in the rules and procedures of any competent law enforcement agency. Done properly, the procedure works; it’s a thing of beauty. It offers the greatest protection for everyone present, and the greatest chance that no one will be harmed. Of course, if the suspect is determined to hurt others, refuses to obey orders, or is determined to commit suicide by cop, that’s a different matter and no matter what highly trained and competent officers do, deadly force may be necessary and justified.

Post shooting, it’s essential that the suspect be restrained--handcuffed-- and then immediately disarmed if still in possession of a weapon in any way. If the suspect has dropped a weapon, it should be left in place unless safety concerns make that impossible. There are many stories in police legend of officers who saved cases and ensured that criminals were convicted by upending a bucket or similar item over a crucial piece of evidence. sitting on it, and refusing even the incorrect, unthinking orders of their superiors in order to protect that evidence. It’s also essential that the suspect be given the most immediate medical help that safety will allow. This is essential to establish that the officers were not acting out of anger or malice, but merely doing their lawful duties.

The duty of every officer to tell the truth and to maintain an unbreakable chain of all relevant evidence should go without saying. In this case, surely all witnesses should have been quickly identified and complete statements taken--there were certainly sufficient officers present for that task. All possible video records should have been taken and scrupulously protected. And of course, an attempt to discover if any civilian video was shot should have been made, and if so, the devices should have been taken into evidence with appropriate receipts given to the owners. The officers involved in the shooting should have been immediately relieved of the weapons used in the shooting and other duty weapons issued to them. They should have been immediately separated and individually interviewed, on videotape. If they did not obtain an attorney before speaking with their own investigators, even if they were absolutely blameless, they are fools. In professional, honest law enforcement agencies, officers involved in shootings are criminal suspects unless the facts prove otherwise, and they must expect to be treated that way.

Unanswered Questions/Issues:

(1) Do the Las Vegas police have written policies/procedures pertaining to this and follow those procedures?

(2) Did the police direct the Costco Security employee to wait for the first responding officers so that Scott could be immediately located and identified? This would be absolutely vital for a potentially armed, dangerous suspect and should be revealed by phone or radio recordings.

(3) Did the police actually have legal cause to shoot or did they shoot without sufficient cause? Did they shoot accidently due to poor tactics or training? If there were at least three officers screaming conflicting commands at Scott, that may well be the case. Or was the shooting a tragic accident, the result of inadequate training, or at worst, negligent retention (keeping a potentially dangerous officer on the street)?

(4) After the first officer fired, who fired next and why? He must be able to articulate clear and convincing reasons for firing each and every round. Can he do this, or was he merely panic firing in response to an unexpected gunshot from whom, he knew not?

(5) At what point had the danger passed? As Scott fell, presumably face down to the ground, what clear, obvious and convincing acts on the part of Scott motivated multiple officers to keep firing into his back?

(6) Where was Scott’s weapon--and its holster--at each second of the encounter and its aftermath? Each millisecond must be convincingly accounted for.

(7) What do the videotapes, inside the store and out, show? Is Scott, at any point, out of control, hostile, raging, erratic? If so, to what degree, when and where? Or is Scott a man calmly shopping with his girlfriend? If he was out of control, the police would be expected to want to release the video.

(8) Was Scott screened for drugs? If there were drugs in his system, it would seem likely that the police would be making that information public.

(9) Were the officers immediately separated and kept separate before questioning? What do their statements say?

(10) Which officers fired which shots, when, why, and where did each round go? Perhaps not all of the rounds fired hit Scott. If not, what did they hit? These questions must be answered conclusively in any competent investigation.

(11) At least one ambulance had apparently been called at the same time as the police. How quickly was Scott afforded medical help?

(12) How was Scott’s girlfriend handled by the police? This might provide clues to their mindset.

Preliminary Observations: Again, remembering that those commenting on this case do not have all of the facts, some preliminary observations are not unreasonable. First and foremost, it’s vital to know exactly what was on the 9-11 tape, and the radio transmissions of the dispatcher(s) to all responding officers. Good dispatchers can save lives; bad dispatchers can cause them to be lost. Did the dispatchers involved accurately gather, process and relay the information they received? If not, they might be the first link in the police chain that led to Scott’s death.

It seems clear that the Costco security employee calling 9-11 did so with, at best, second or third hand information. Whether Costco security kept Scott under personal or video surveillance is unknown, but what is known may suggest that they did not, or did so only incompletely, and that they were not waiting for responding officers (the police should have directed the security employee to do this, which is again, something all officer should learn in their basic academy classes), identifying Scott only on the spur of the moment after he had already passed other officers, to whom he apparently posed no threat and to whom he apparently seemed unremarkable. Scott’s sudden appearance and identification appear to have surprised the officers involved in the shooting, putting them at a tactical disadvantage, a situation no officer relishes. They apparently found themselves in the open, with no cover, no direct control over the situation, civilians in the background (the potential line of police fire) and potentially in the way--very bad tactics that competent officers always try to avoid unless they are overtaken by circumstances. It also seems clear that the officers immediately drew their weapons and at least three began shouting conflicting commands, including “drop it,” when all available evidence indicates that Scott’s handgun was never in either of his hands. It would also seem that the officer’s demeanor greatly alarmed Scott’s girlfriend--with good cause--and she did all that she could to fend off what she feared would inevitably happen.

Once the first shot was fired, the other officers may have opened fire sympathetically rather than because of any observable reason for shooting, and may not, in fact, have known, at the time they began pulling the trigger, who fired the first round. Even if they were entirely justified in every shot fired, the four or more shots into the back of a man already dead or dying and face down on the ground, particularly if he had no weapon in his hands or within easy reach does not--at best--speak well of the officers, their training, or their agency, and it is surely a public relations disaster. In fact, in competent firearm training and tactics instruction, officers are taught to fire one or two rounds immediately, then to lower their weapon to ready and assess the necessity of firing again, a process that can be properly done in a second or less. In fact, they should also immediately glance to the right and left to eliminate tunnel vision, an unthinking focus on a tightly restricted field of vision that makes it impossible to see, hear or react to anything else, a common and dangerous human reaction to these situations (two of the officers who fired may have had only a year or less on the job), and what may have happened to each of the officers involved as it usually does in similar situations.

It is not unusual for the police to keep information out of the public eye for a variety of good and lawful reasons, at least until after the initial inquest or preliminary hearing. However, eventually, all of the evidence should be produced, and surely must be produced for the attorneys of the Scott family. If the police are blameless, they should be anxious to release the 9-11 call, the radio transmissions, and most importantly, all video evidence. When the time comes, if they are reluctant to make the evidence public, if evidence has been in any way mishandled, or worse, altered or destroyed, the public would be justified in drawing the most negative and damaging conclusions. After all, if the actions of the police were indeed justified and lawful, the video and audio evidence should exonerate them.

It is standard practice in many professional law enforcement agencies that another, independent agency, such as the state police, investigate officer shootings to remove any suggestion of corruption. Apparently this is not to be the case in Las Vegas. In fact, police procedure for any unattended death, and particularly those involving officer shootings, commonly require that the incident be handled as a homicide until it can be positively ruled out so as to properly deal with evidence and cover all bases. At this point, with admittedly limited information, any competent internal investigator should have serious concerns about the actions of the officers involved. Those concerns might well be eventually alleviated by the evidence, but absent convincing evidence that contradicts initial impressions, it would be hard to imagine how the police were justified in their actions in this case.

The Ballad of Goatse Paul

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Laureate who seems to have deserved his honor just as much as President Obama did his. Writing from inside the walls of his Westchester estate (your mansion is in Westchester, isn't it Paul?), Krugman attacks "the angry rich," the unsufferable and arrogant Americans that don't feel the government has a right to plunder even more of their hard-earned income.

Americans that want to keep their income instead of turning it over to an unworthy government are angry... and Krugman goes out of his way to demonize them.

These are terrible times for many people in this country. Poverty, especially acute poverty, has soared in the economic slump; millions of people have lost their homes. Young people can’t find jobs; laid-off 50-somethings fear that they’ll never work again.

Yet if you want to find real political rage — the kind of rage that makes people compare President Obama to Hitler, or accuse him of treason — you won’t find it among these suffering Americans. You’ll find it instead among the very privileged, people who don’t have to worry about losing their jobs, their homes, or their health insurance, but who are outraged, outraged, at the thought of paying modestly higher taxes.

True to form, Krugman has his head shoved so firmly up the southern end of his alimentary canal that his collarbones are sagging under the pressure.

You don't see chauffeured Bentley's at Tea Party rallies, and razor sharp creases on tailored trousers aren't the uniform of the day. There are buses and Walmart tee shirts, homemade signs, and genuine goodwill towards men.

As a matter of fact, a disproportionate number of multi-millionaires and billionaires (such as the Mexican tycoon that rescued Mr. Krugman's employer) are dedicated Democrats, and their message, more than than that of the right, relies on the deep pockets of Carlos Slim, George Soros, the Tides Foundations, and a Byzantine network of smaller organizations that operate as a liberty-stealing hydra.

The angry today fall into two camps; those that are furious that our government has far exceeded the mandate our Founding Fathers established, and the statists that have come so close to establishing complete control, but fear it slipping through their sticky grasp.

Krugman, Obama, and their fellow leftist radicals fall into the later group of parasites. They would break this nation if they can, sappings its spirit to make it docile, controllable, and unexceptional... a spineless citizenry mimicking a lesser Britain.

The majority of Americans want to live as American were meant to live, unfettered and unbowed and unbeholden to those that imagine themselves a ruling class. They will not be cowed by the threats of a leaching state... or the rants on one if its lesser pundits.

They—we—are the angry ones that Krugman really fears, lurking in the shadows outside of his estate, waiting for justice and revenge in November.

Left Wing Activist: Chris Coons is a Monster

I keep reading that Delaware Senate candidate Chris Coons is a "bearded Marxist." Apparently that makes him worse than shaving Marxists, but that isn't really my area of expertise. He's a Democrat that would back Obamanomics and the further degradation of our economy. Do you really need another reason to vote against him, even if you don't care for his opponent?

But his politics aren't the only reason to vote against him; he also seems to be a vicious little monster that unleashes the power of the state against his critics.

Please note that the activist in the article is a self-professed left-wing green, and that the blogger who broke this, Patrick Frey, isn't a Christine O'Donnell fan...nor am I.

But the simple fact of the matter is that Delaware has to send someone to the Senate, and we're down to voting for the lesser of two evils. I'll pick a slightly nutty but mostly harmless candidate any day over a power-abusing petty tyrant like Coons.

Seems like an easy choice. I hope Delaware voters agree.

Where We Go From Here

I promised you several days ago that the break I took from blogging gave me some time to think about what I wanted to do as a writer and blogger, and that I'd have some changes and announcements to make.

So let's get to it.

Confederate Yankee has been my blogging home for almost six years now. It began as flippantly picked Blogspot blog by the same name, which was chosen to match the subject matter of a one-off blog post that soon became a blogging obsession.

The entire time I've had this blog, it has been focused on U.S. national politics, with forays into media criticism and other subjects. It will remain focused on those topics, and I may begin looking at other contributors to start writing on these subjects soon.

At the same time, while CY has done a lot for me, it has taken a lot from me as well. I don't sleep enough. I obsess over finding the next story. I rant and rave and get angry, and found myself coming dangerously close to going this nuts.

Did I mention that I don't want to be this nuts?

And so I'm doing three things.

1. I'm backing off how much time I spend blogging
2. I'm changing how I approach blogging
3. I'm returning to blogging for fun

Expect my posting frequency to slow down a bit here. You'll see fewer long-form stories, and more links, and you shouldn't be surprised if I'm a bit more mellow in my approach. That said, I'm not stopping. Just re-focusing.

In addition to Confederate Yankee you will now be able to find me at bob-owens.com and two subdomain blogs that I've got in beta, The Gun Counter and Restoration Song.

bob-owens.com: Unlike CY, this is purely and completely a vanity blog, cataloging things I find that are interesting or a amusing.

The Gun Counter is exactly what it sounds like, a blog focusing on firearms and firearms-related stories.

Restoration Song is my attempt to find a high road and still talk about politics... if that can be done.

Folks, I'm not looking to shake things up all that much. I hope the changes actually give you more and more interesting content to check out, while still allowing me more time to focus on the things that really matter. I enjoy blogging, and I'll continue to do it, but there are other, far more important things to be doing with your life and mine, and I intent to start doing them.

Gunned Down in Vegas: What Really Happened to Erik Scott?

I've written about war, rape, massacres, mass murders and terrorism, so I don't easily get disturbed by the content of the stories I cover.

Erik Scott's senseless death is different.

...And We're Back

Okay, not back back, but getting there. The doctor was very impressed by my wife's progress in healing from her foot surgery, and she is transitioning from being nearly bed-ridden to merely recliner-ridden. I'm almost back to as "normal" as I get.

As we are able to return to more normal lives I'll be able to get back to a more regular publishing schedule, both here and in the various other haunts where I appear.

The 4 1/2 week break gave me time to think about what I want to do as a writer/blogger, and I'll have some changes to announce soon, including the official announcement of my new blogs (yes, plural) and the direction I hope to take with this one.

Tune in, folks... it should be fun.