October 27, 2010

The Erik Scott Case: Update 7.2

So she got a few tickets. What’s the big deal? I refer, of course, to Samantha Sterner, Erik Scott’s girlfriend and arguably the most important witness in the upcoming civil trial regarding the metro police shooting of Scott on July 10, 2010. In Update 7 (the archive with all Erik Scott related posts and is available here.) I wrote of the fact that Sterner had recently received two traffic citations and several friends had been followed by the police for such distances that mere coincidence was not a credible explanation. The common factor was that all of the vehicles involved displayed a red, white and blue Erik Scott memorial ribbon on their rear surfaces.

Since that post, Sterner has received a third ticket. Bill Scott’s more detailed account of these recent developments can be found here. In brief, Sterner has received three tickets, two by Henderson officers, one by a Metro officer near her workplace, and as I mentioned in Update 7, others have been harassed--there is no other word for it--as well. So what’s the big deal? Lots of people get tickets, right?

That, precisely, is the big deal. We--society--lend the police an important and uniquely destructive power: The power to make arrests. But I’ve never been arrested! If you’ve ever received a traffic ticket, you have, in fact, been arrested.

An arrest occurs when a person is stopped and detained by the police and a reasonable person would believe that they were not free to go. An officer does not have to say the magic words--”You are under arrest”--in order for an arrest to occur.

With this in mind, consider the circumstances of a traffic stop. Virtually all legitimate traffic stops occur because officers have probable cause, facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe that a crime has been committed and that a specific person has committed it. In other words, an officer sees a citizen running a stop sign, or tracks a citizen on radar exceeding the speed limit. He knows a crime has been committed and that the person he observed committed it, so he stops them and they are not, until he is done, free to go. They are under arrest.

If they’re arrested, why don’t the police take them to jail? Considering the sheer number of traffic tickets issued, it would be impractical, so almost everyone issued a citation is allowed to go on their way after signing a promise to appear in court, or otherwise take care of the citation before the court date. An officer can, if he believes it’s warranted, take a traffic violator into custody--remember, every traffic citation is an arrest--but he must be able to explain why, unlike with 98+% of all traffic violators, it was necessary.

Once again, what’s the big deal? Competent, honest police officers and agencies know it’s a very big deal indeed. For most of the population, traffic stops are the only personal contact they’ll ever have--apart from making a report of a crime--with their police. The police get only one chance to make a good impression with most of the public. If a citizen is ill-treated, that cancer will spread to everyone with whom they speak, and fair or not, most people are willing to believe the worst about the police.

Courtesy and professionalism, particularly in traffic stops, is considered so important in competent agencies that it is taught not only in basic training, but continually reinforced throughout an officer’s career. As a line supervisor and a field training officer (an experienced officer teaching, one-on-one, new officers on the street) I always told my officers to treat every citizen they met as they would want any officer to treat their mother or wife, a sort of policeman's Golden Rule. This attitude is the norm in professional agencies, as is a supervisor’s dressing down when officers forget or, God help them, become what competent police call “badge heavy,” taking themselves and their authority too seriously, even abusing it.

Norms for citations are established, formal and informal, in every agency. The public often thinks that officers have a quota, that they are required to write a given number of citations each month. While this is possible, reality is, for most agencies, much more mundane. Think about the last time you drove to a grocery store. How many traffic violations did you see? Now imagine that you’re a shift supervisor. If one of your officers hasn’t written a single traffic citation in three weeks, wouldn’t you wonder if he was actually awake on patrol? Wouldn’t you encourage him to pay greater attention to this aspect of his duties?

Even so, officers are expected to show good judgement in issuing citations (and all that they do). Anyone writing tickets for exceeding the speed limit by three to five MPH would be rightfully accused of writing “chickenshit” tickets, tickets within the margin of error, tickets that can be handed out like candy at any minute of the day to citizens who have no intention of violating the law. Who has not found themselves inadvertently traveling five or so MPH above or below the speed limit? The point is that officers should be issuing traffic citations only for substantive violations. It hurts the police and respect for the law in general if the police issue citations to people who are doing their best to obey the law. It’s unprofessional and stupid, for as much as the people need the police, the police need the support and good will of the people even more.

Professional officers generally won’t write chickenshit tickets, including a ticket for a red light run unless the light turned red before the car actually entered the plane of the intersection. They’ll write “red” lights, but not “pink” lights, because they know that sometimes people make honest mistakes, but if a pink light run, for example, resulted in an accident, that’s a different matter. Professionals know that understanding and acting upon common sense and human nature not only does not hurt their productivity, but ensures that few citizens will contest their citations. During my last stint on the street, I wrote more citations in a single year than an entire traffic division, yet I would never write a speeding ticket unless the driver was traveling 13 or more MPH over the limit. Who could reasonably argue that they did not know they were traveling 38+ in a 25 zone? My conviction rate was 100% because I never wrote a chickenshit ticket and was unfailingly polite and kind to drivers. Professional officers call it “selling the ticket.” At least 80% of all drivers thanked me when our contact was over. This too is common for professional officers. I also wrote far more warning citations than most. I received nearly 100% thanks for those.

As with far too much in the Erik Scott case, this behavior by the officers of two cooperating police agencies goes beyond mere coincidence. It is unprofessional. It is badge heavy; it is destructive to the community and to the officers and their agencies. Oh, and let's not forget that tampering with witnesses (Sterner will be a witness in the upcoming civil trial and the Police know this) is unethical and a crime. But beyond all of that, which is bad enough, it is cruel, inhumane and unworthy. Professional police officers pride themselves on being the guardians of the weak and helpless, on protecting those who need protection and on helping those who need help. At their best, they embody warrior virtues and honor, as old fashioned as that is, and as politically incorrect as such values may be, even the most ardent liberal discovers the value and necessity of those simple virtues when someone is breaking in their front door at 0300.

Here is what is known as this is written: Sterner’s traffic record has apparently been clear for years, yet in roughly two weeks she has been cited twice for failing to clear an intersection before a red light (which sounds like an incredibly lame pink light situation) and once for speeding approximately five MPH over the limit. In each case, she was reportedly merely keeping up with the flow of surrounding traffic, traffic which was also committing the same “violations” all around her. If we assume that all of this is correct, these are, at best, classic chickenshit tickets, ignoring who Sterner is and ignoring what has happened to her and what is happening to her. At worst, they are blatant, dishonorable harassment and cruelty.

In this case we have a young woman who experienced the unimaginable horror of seeing the man she knew and loved for years shot and killed within inches of her, shot and killed by the police. A honorable man (or woman) would want to ensure that such a woman was protected and kept safe from harm, was given time to heal and to build a new life, was not forced, inadvertently or purposely, to relive the horror. What kind of man smells vulnerability and exploits it? What kind of man takes pleasure in the misery of others, to say nothing of purposely causing such misery? Certainly not one who should be entrusted by the public with a badge. One of my past supervisors proposed a wonderful standard for police behavior: “If your mother would be ashamed of it, don’t do it.” God help the mother who would be proud of what these officers are doing.

Here is what should happen in a professional, honorable police agency, even if the officers involved acted completely without malice, having no idea who Sterner was, even if the citations are completely legitimate. Appearances matter to professional agencies and these citations, this behavior is plainly awful and harmful.

(1) Sterner and anyone involved in the case should be, absent an absolutely unavoidable necessity of police involvement, off limits to officers. They should leave her alone, not only because it’s the right thing to do, not only because it’s what honorable men and women do, but because such petty, cruel harassment is cumulative. It will harm the community and the police. Likewise, it's not the business of the police to care about the content of bumper stickers. Their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution covers this.

(2) Any supervisor receiving such citations from officers should invalidate them, immediately, for all of the reasons I’ve noted and because it is minimum professional supervisory practice. They should take all necessary disciplinary and corrective actions.

(3) Any higher ranking officer learning that such tickets were being written and such unprofessional harassment was taking place, and that first line supervisors were doing nothing should take appropriate action against all involved, which should include invalidating all tickets.

(4) The heads of the two agencies involved should immediately see that this harassment is stopped, that those involved are disciplined, and that it never, every happens again to anyone. The chief or sheriff of any professional agency should be horrified at the public relations damage of such cruel, degrading behavior on the part of their officers. They should take all necessary disciplinary and corrective actions.

(5) The prosecutors involved should immediately dismiss all citations and make it clear that they will cause outside state and federal investigations to occur if the behavior does not immediately cease.

(6) Should none of this happen, should the entire criminal justice system in Las Vegas be so hopelessly corrupt, any judge before whom these tickets come should dismiss them with prejudice and make it clear that the judiciary will not countenance any such behavior in the future.

There is no excuse. There is no explanation. The police are doing lasting damage to themselves and their community, damage that will have tragic consequences.


It appears that it was Metro Det. Jensen, not Det. Calos, who testified that the bullet that struck Erik Scott in the thigh also struck the Ruger pistol supposedly concealed in his pocket. Should this be the case, as it now appears to be, I sincerely regret the inadvertent error and make correction here. There is no doubt, however, that the Police through their detectives, did present this testimony.

There also appears to be conflicting information relating to the existence of Police photographs depicting Erik Scott’s cell phone and .45 handgun in a single photograph. However, there seems to be little or no doubt that those two items did not appear together in the crime scene diagram that did depict the position of the .45. It was this diagram that Det. Calos explained had no position for the Blackberry because he picked it up, apparently preventing its accurate measurement and diagramming.

In previous updates, I have referred to Metro Officer “Start.” I am told, reliably, I believe, that the correct spelling of his last name is “Stark,” and have made those corrections in Update 7. This error was based on the incorrect spelling of his last name in local media, and I regret the inadvertent error. Should I still be in error, I welcome contact from Off. Stark in order to make the appropriate correction.

A commenter wondered if it was possible that Erik Scott carried his wallet, which his family described as very thick, and a Ruger .380 pistol in his right front pocket. While this is potentially physically possible, it is unlikely. It is unlikely first because it would be ridiculously uncomfortable. It is also unlikely because it would be tactically self-defeating. The handgun would be almost impossible to draw if necessary and would be prone to accidental discharge while being drawn. It would contradict the purpose and necessary utility of carrying a concealed handgun. Erik Scott was, by all accounts, more than tactically aware enough to avoid this. It is also unlikely because the best information available strongly suggests that he was not carrying that handgun at all.


One of the greatest difficulties and frustrations in this case is not being able to write with complete and accurate information. Even videotape and transcripts from the Inquest are far from accurate and complete--more than likely on purpose--and the Police are not releasing any additional, clarifying information to the media, and certainly not to a little known blogger in a distant state. One cannot expect such information from the Scott family either as their lawyers, as would any good lawyer, will certainly keep what they know under wraps until they are ready to use it in a civil trial.

As always, our goal is to provide analysis and background information that will help the public to better understand what has happened and what may be happening. As I have never been shy about saying, any theory or analysis is limited by that lack of complete factual information and may very well be incorrect in ways small or great. I have not, do not and will not present such analysis or theorizing as fact, and I will do my best to make corrections whenever better information becomes available. Metro officers or others having pertinent information are welcome to comment or to contact us directly, and we always appreciate the comments and insights of our astute readers.

A commenter, responding to Update 7, suggested that the theory of the case outlined therein was a “paranoid fantasy.” Tragically, I fear he is mistaken because not only is the theory possible, it’s probable. There are no known facts relating to time, people or any other variable that would invalidate it, and there are far too many unusual, difficult to explain actions and omissions on the part of the Police and other authorities that are well illuminated and explained by the theory. Occam’s Razor applies: The simplest, most direct explanation is likely to be correct. Perhaps additional facts will emerge that will allow portions or all of the theory to be altered, deconstructed or confirmed, but it is also likely that the entire truth will never be known. This leaves all of us, citizens in a free society, the employers of all of our elected officials and public servants, to ponder, discuss, and theorize in the hope that justice will be done, and that such tragedies never again occur. This, ultimately, is our hope and potential service, a service far from paranoia or fantasy.

Posted by MikeM at October 27, 2010 12:09 AM

I have allways respected the police and take all police on thier individual merits like anyone else.

that hasnt changed for me.

but, I am completely filled with loathing for any cops or agancy if they dishonor themselves.

the moment they cross the line from sheepdog to wolf, they have lost all respect from me.

all signs point towards too many wolves instead of sheepdogs in the vegas ranks.

another thought on the allmost pridefull way one commenter here described the shooting of vicky weaver between the eyes,

if you can admire that, I think you are in the process of changing from a sheepdog to a wolf.

and for another poster, if you can not only dismiss all off mikeM's analisys as fantasy you also need to start looking in the mirror and take a moral inventory.

Posted by: rumcrook at October 27, 2010 02:01 AM


As we discussed via email, my thoughts and opinions on the tickets and other harrassment exactly mirror yours. Not only with regard to the officers but also the roles of the line supervisors and commanders in the situation. I swear that I am totally baffled that this type of behavior could be tolerated in any professional law enforcement agency, particularly one which is in the spotlight and facing a civil case like the MLVPD is. As we both agreed, this is NOT coincidence.

Not being familiar with the geography of the area, I do have one question. Is Henderson part of the Metro area or do they have a separate stand alone department? (I do know that some of the smaller communities in the county have assigned officers from metro, but don't know if Henderson is one of them.)

Posted by: Montie at October 27, 2010 03:54 AM


My alarm bells ring even harder knowing that ALL of the tickets Ms. Sterner has received are arguably of the "chickenshit" variety (we use the same terminology here). When I get one of those for approval, I usually have a chat with the officer to find out why he felt it was necessary to go there. Often as not I will end up voiding the ticket.

Like you, I am acutely aware that traffic stops are often the only contact that the average person has with law enforcement in the guise of enforcing the law, and it is critical to get it right. I ride my officers about the amount of time that they hold people when writing tickets. Ten minutes or less should be rule of thumb. I had one officer who routinely held people up to thirty minutes to get a ticket written and as a result generated a large number of complaints. A couple of written reprimands finally got it through to him, that no matter how curteous he was, after thirty minutes, everbody reaches a point of exasperation. I always consider it a point of pride to be thanked at the conclusion of a traffic stop, particularly one in which I issue one or more tickets.

This is just more evidence of a serious problem within the MLVPD and I am stunned that they don't even seem to see anything wrong with it. Like you I see it as possible witness intimidation.


I wonder if in fact that commenter isn't just some internet troll who likes to get people revved up. Every cop I know thought the FBI shooter in the Randy Weaver case should have been tried for first degree murder.

Posted by: Montie at October 27, 2010 04:19 AM

Me again. Just exactly what do YOU think the probability of ANY of your 6 recommendations will be followed by ANY of those involved?

And let me assure you that THIS modus operandi is FAR MORE prevalent in the "Law Enforcement" community than you would even CARE to imaging. Because THEY CAN.

Posted by: Mark Matis at October 27, 2010 09:33 AM

I would strongly suggest that Miss Sterner lawyer up if she hasn't done so yet - and keep his number on her cell phone speed dial. Punch it every time she gets stopped. This is an escalating situation that will probably end in her being "accidently" shot during a "routine" traffic stop.
Remember even parnoids have REAL enemies...

Posted by: emdfl at October 27, 2010 11:03 AM

And I'll go even further. While the INITIAL action may have only been a terrible mistake, and the INITIAL coverup only been the action of a FEW officers, at this point the ENTIRE MLVPD is involved in this corruption. Because by now that is CLEARLY what it is. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is dishonoring their oath of office. THERE IS NO EXCLUSION in that oath for "unless it makes my boss unhappy" nor "unless it could cost me my pension" nor even "unless my fellow officers will refuse to back me up when I need help." And the old Sergeant Schultz "I see nothing!" doesn't cut it either. ANY department which has descended to such depths is nothing more than Thugs with Guns. Las Vegas USED to be run by the Mafia. THEY were FAR MORE honorable than the putrid stench of evil that currently passes themselves off as "Law Enforcement" in that city. The stench is overwhelming.

Posted by: Mark Matis at October 27, 2010 11:18 AM


Posted by: rumcrook at October 27, 2010 11:29 AM

A Terry Stop is not an arrest.

Posted by: Federale at October 27, 2010 12:01 PM

"There are no known facts relating to time, people or any other variable that would invalidate it..." except the testimony of the witness of the shooting who say Scott drew a pistol and pointed at Mosher. Even Sterner testified at the inquest that Scott drew his weapon, but she said it was to give up the weapon.

There is no controversy, because there are no facts that are in dispute. Especially the fact that Scott was hopped up on drugs at the time he was shot.

Occam's Razor actually says the simplest explanation is the most likely and the the facts clearly show that Scott drew his weapon and pointed it at Mosher, who then fired.

All else is irrelevant. Traffic tickets, the Public Administrator entering Scott's condo, the Ruger, etc. Irrelevant.

Scott was out of his mind with prescription drugs and carrying a gun. He decided, undoubtedly in a drug induced haze, refuse to leave Costco when asked. He, again, in a drug induced haze, then drew his weapon when challenged by a police officer acting within the law, and was shot.

This is a case of suicide by cop. Sad, tragic, but all of it the fault of Scott, when he decided to abuse prescription pain killers and carry a gun at the same time.

Posted by: Federale at October 27, 2010 12:10 PM

And for Montie, I would posit that Federale and Buck are FAR MORE representative of "Law Enforcement" in this country than the group you hang with. While "Every cop I know thought the FBI shooter in the Randy Weaver case should have been tried for first degree murder." may be YOUR experience, the lying sewage that routinely refuse to honor their oath are FAR MORE the norm than what you think. The stench is overwhelming.

Posted by: Mark Matis at October 27, 2010 12:40 PM

I live in a small town and my experience may not be the norm for those in large metropolitan areas I used to work for the newspaper and had extensive contact with the police, both supervisors and street officers. I was once even stopped and arrested for legally purchasing a legal vehicle. At all times I have seen the police interaction with the public being in the best traditions as MikeM has explained them.

As for my arrest for purchasing a legal vehicle it was because I hadn't removed the previous owners tags while driving it to town. I bought the car from my father-in-law who lived seven miles outside the city I live in. I was driving it back to town when I was stopped because the tags were outdated. When the officer stopped me I said I had just bought the car and he said, "That's a shame, if it were still your father-in-law's I could just give you a ticket but since they are his tags and it's now your car I have to arrest you for borrowed or stolen tags."

He was polite at all times and I rode in the front of the police car to the station unrestrained. At trial the judge threw out the charge of borrowed or stolen tags.

I still see the officer around but now he's a detective and doesn't do traffic duty anymore. I joke with him about the incident and have had several laughs over the arrest. And yes, I thanked him at the end.

For those who have had a negative outcome with their interactions with police I would bet an objective witness to the incidents would observe the ones complaining the loudest about the police are the ones treating the police the worst.

Posted by: NevadaSteve at October 27, 2010 01:04 PM


Exactly what interaction on a nationwide level have you had with the police that give you the experience to make such a sweeping indictment?

How many negative interactions have you personally experienced, and did you come at them with the same attitude from the git-go that you display here?

I've been a cop for 25 years and worked in departments large and small. I HAVE run into the occasional bad cop, and even experienced corruption that was endemic to a good portion of an entire department, but worked hard to curtail the careers of the "criminals with badges" that I found there.

But, the vast majority of people in the police profession are good people dedicated to doing the right thing. Since the police are drawn from the population at large there will always be those who abuse the power entrusted to them. Most departments will try to rid themselves of those types when discovered. Occasionally, it goes undiscovered or spreads like a cancer to the point that good cops are fearful to act against it and it takes a major effort or outside intervention to correct, but that is not the norm.

I'm sorry for the experience that you may have had that has made you so bitter toward law enforcement, but I would ask that you not try to paint all of us with the same brush.

Posted by: Montie at October 27, 2010 01:40 PM


It's not so much that I think that the shooting may not have been justified from the point of view of the involved officers. There is a lot of testimony and evidence that points to just that. In the same circumstances, with the same information provided to me, I may have been put in the position to have fired those shots.

It's just that the actions you dismiss so offhandedly give the APPEARANCE of corruption or incompetence, leading to doubts in the minds of many as to the veracity of the police regarding the WHOLE INCIDENT.

The only MLVPD officer that I am actually familiar with is Officer Robert Hindi, and he is a consummate professional in every possible way. However, that does not mean that corruption and/or incompetence does not permeate much of the department as many of the things Mike has discussed would seem to indicate.

If anything, it would seem that MLVPD suffers from a dirth of competent leadeship from from line supervisors to the sheriff, because the things Mike has revealed should not be tolerated, and if the information circulating among the public is incorrect, the department should be working hard to correct all the bad info and misconceptions.

Posted by: Montie at October 27, 2010 02:00 PM


Correct. A "Terry Stop" is not an arrest. It is an "investigative detention" based on an officer's reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed, or is about to commit a crime.

It may lead to an arrest or it may not. But, technically any detention by an officer from which the person being detained is not free to simply walk away from is an "arrest" however short that "arrest" might be.

It's just a parsing of terminology to allow us to do our jobs in a reasonable fashion.

Posted by: Montie at October 27, 2010 02:07 PM

For Montie:

Start here:
and recognize those are only REPORTED instances of "Law Enforcement" at their finest. Do note that they DID have the Eric Scott killing, but that NONE of the subsequent conduct has appeared therein. Then note just HOW MUCH of fine actions by other "Law Enforcement" like these ARE NEVER released to the public because, after all, "It's only a personnel matter." As I've said before, the stench is overwhelming.

But then, I'm just a nattering nabob of negativism. After all, MOST "Law Enforcement" scrupulously honor their oath of office, as they do all other oaths they take. That's why police reports and police testimony under oath are always the unvarnished truth. Like Joe Friday was alleged to say, "Just the facts, ma'am." As Pepperdine University has found:

And of course, you don't want to miss:

You TRULY DO lead a sheltered life, don't you?

Posted by: Mark Matis at October 27, 2010 02:21 PM

Mike M
Thanks once again. I would say you put it in a nutshell. The benifit of the doubt would be givin if the doubt was not accumulating like a snowball down a mountain side.

Posted by: Jvh at October 27, 2010 02:29 PM


I wonder, if it comes out that Erik Scott only had his cell phone in his hand if your tune would change. If the fireman under cross examination says he took the kimber out of Erik Scott's waistband. Would that really matter to you???

Posted by: Jvh at October 27, 2010 02:35 PM

all of it was the fault of scott?

thats pathetic.

are the tickets and harrasment of his girlfriend his fault too?

the illegal search and siezure of property in her home and her being locked out was his fault?

sounds like the hystrionics of someone who beats women then claims its there fault for making them angry.

Posted by: rumcrook at October 27, 2010 03:23 PM


Be careful, some on this site can't handle uncustomary opinions. You'll be stereotyped as a troll or, even worse, a truismer!

Posted by: Buck Turgidson at October 27, 2010 03:42 PM

Or more accurately as a pig, along with you, Mr. Turgidson! And just HOW MUCH do YOU bother to honor your oath of office? Would you bother to not force the people into the box cars that will take them so Work Can Make Them Free? Or is even that too much to expect of something so worthless as that oath?

Posted by: Mark Matis at October 27, 2010 05:12 PM

yeah, I dislike people who carry out orders to shoot unarmed women between the eyes while holding babies, and people who admire that,

makes me a real intolerant guy....

I think most police are good and ethical poeple. but like I said before its not a job for everybody and if they cant do the job anymore without seeing everyone except other cops as scum of the earth its time to get out.

Posted by: rumcrook at October 27, 2010 05:40 PM

To answer your earlier question Metro and Henderson have different departments, but Metro has authority over them. My residence is in Henderson, yet Metro patrols the area.

Excellent article on the last few posts as well as this one, thank you for keeping people informed. I find it troubling that none of this information is being made known to the public here in Las Vegas. Not one mention on the news of the Public Administrator breaking into the home and locking out Ms. Sterner. Not one word of her recieving 3 tickets in the past couple of weeks.

Federale you are an assclown seriously. I looked at your pathetic blog trying to mock people for even questioning the police. Reasoning with you is like reasoning with a robot. You just spam the same tired summed up version of how you interpreted witness testimony. Go ahead and just try to discredit some more on and on about

Posted by: willis in vegas at October 27, 2010 07:06 PM

...medication in his system so nothing else matters. How much of the morphine was pumped into him in the ambulance? Now go ahead and discredit the girlfriend somehow maybe she kicked someones dog a few years back so she deserves to be locked out of her home the day metro killed her boyfriend and pulled over and ticketed every chance they get.

Posted by: willis in vegas at October 27, 2010 07:08 PM

gee willis in vegas how dare you be so anti cop by proclaiming this women shouldnt be harrassed intimidated, and have the heavy hand of government lock her out of her own home out of spite, disregard malice and lawlessness.....

you probably are so anti cop you think its poor training if a man whos laying face down is continuelly shot in the back! how dare you question what happened that day. police are innfallable

and if you dont beleive that you obviously hate cops.../////////

Posted by: rumcrook at October 27, 2010 07:40 PM

@Federale also you are incorrect in how you are portraying bits and pieces of Ms. Sterners testimony. She clearly stated that he never drew his weapon and even expands on that stating that it was still tucked on the inside of his pants in the holster when he fell to ground. Go ahead and look it up on the local news 3 website they have the entire testimony she gave that was presented at the inquest recorded so you can hear for yourself. Pull your head out of your ass please.

Posted by: willis in vegas at October 27, 2010 08:27 PM


Vicki was armed, as always. She was well aware police were in the treeline as she was using the infant as a shield, while holding the door open for a wounded Kevin.

I take it all your knowledge of this event came from the DailyCosmunaut?

BTW, his name was Degan.

Posted by: Buck Turgidson at October 27, 2010 10:29 PM

Buck, that's what one has come to expect from lying pig swill, just like the MLVPD's finest. The stench is overwhelming. Filthy. Maggot. Pigs.

Posted by: Mark Matis at October 28, 2010 09:31 AM

there was no way out,

there were no hostages,

there was no threat to the general public.

the reason they were on that property shooting and killing people was trumped up. they purposely lured weaver into breaking the law and had to practicaly brow beat him into it. he could have been arrested in any number of ways after that,

but no they decided this was thier oportunity to play commando.

they are and were immoral and lawless and thugs

the government agents decided this would be a shoot to kill adventure.

in fact many agencies want to play soldier instead of finding a smarter way to go about thier arrest as a civillian agency.

am I advocating allowing people who break the law to wonder off scott free? of course not.

but entrapping someone then killing his family is thuggery.

Posted by: rumcrook at October 28, 2010 11:51 AM
It is also unlikely because it would be tactically self-defeating. The handgun would be almost impossible to draw if necessary and would be prone to accidental discharge while being drawn.

and, for a more mundane reason to not carry a pistol in the same pocket as your blackberry--it is an excellent way to scratch the heck out of the screen.


Thank you for posting an eminently reasonable and fair examination of the current situation.

Posted by: iconoclast at October 28, 2010 12:02 PM


Some of what you say is true, some of what you say is keyboard fallacious. USMS waited over a year for Randy to come down, and had been negotiating for his surrender through third parties and his attorney (which Randy stopped talking to six month into this, as his attorney was part of the great conspiracy). Had not Striker detected the surveillance team placing more cameras around the property, had not Sam and Kevin chased the team down the ridge off Randy's property and cornered them, setting this debacle in play, Randy still be up there home schooling Elisheba.

Many, many mistakes were made, mostly by our government law enforcement leaders. Letters to every federal agency that exist from neighbor Kinnison, that ex-special forces Randy was armed and manic didn't help. Potts changing the rules of engagement didn't help. Vicki's very strange letter to President Reagan didn't help. Randy and Vicki's apocalyptic obsessions didn't help. And, most of all, when FBI supervisor Danny Coulson re-evaluated the intelligence at hand during this situation and realized the FBI had greatly overestimated the Weaver's threat level, nobody agreed with him.

Ugly, but true. Some wish to change history to suit their agenda, but it is what it is, rumcrook.

Posted by: Buck Turgidson at October 28, 2010 02:03 PM


Are you aware of the medications Mr. Scott was taking? By all accounts, they appear to be painkillers and muscle relaxants, which have the side effect of drowsiness. He might have a DUI waiting to happen, but that does not equal raging and threatening people in the store. It may have led to the shooting, but only by making Mr. Scott slower to react to police commands.

Also, ignoring actions after the initial shot is a foolish approach. The officers continued firing, did not handle the scene professionally, and apparently got someone to help them enter a home without a warrant. This, in my mind, is what turns a tragic case into a criminal one. Even assuming he drew a gun, their later actions are unwarranted.

Posted by: OmegaPaladin at October 28, 2010 03:02 PM

Neither Federale nor Buck care in the least about what the facts of the case are. They both perjured themselves to get their badges, and have no honor whatsoever. Their ONLY loyalty is to their Brothers in Blue. NO cop can do ANY wrong in their eyes, unless said cop "rats out" one of the lying swill. While the Eric Scott shooting was plainly not first degree murder, it clearly was AT LEAST manslaughter. Since then, the corruption in the MLVPD and the entire legal system there has been so massive that NOBODY in that department has ANY credibility remaining. The entire department should be disbanded and their certificates revoked in such a way that NONE of them will ever be able to put on a badge again. But Federale and Buck don't see it that way. And Montie thinks they can't be representative of "Law Enforcement" as a whole. Hate to tell you, Montie, but you and your "good cop" buddies are the enablers for Federale, Buck, Lon, and the REST of that putrid stench of evil. By continually playing the Sergeant Schultz "I SEE NOTHING" routine, you make sure that the evil in "Law Enforcement"" continues. Which is why civil war is coming, and soon. Not to overthrow the government and start a new state based on Nazism or Marxism or Islam or Communism, but instead to bring this country back to its Constitutional state. A state which Horiuchi and Federale and Buck ABSOLUTELY despise. The stench is overwhelming.

Posted by: Mark Matis at October 28, 2010 04:10 PM

You never told us where you did your 'time', Mark.

Posted by: Buck Turgidson at October 28, 2010 05:59 PM

I wont quible with anything you said.

it sounds like just a differently worded way from what I wrote to say it was badly mishandled.

Posted by: rumcrook at October 28, 2010 06:46 PM

Buck, by now both you and the rest of your pig buddies know VERY WELL I never did time or even was arrested. But as I said earlier, with the "honor" that you and they routinely show, I wouldn't expect that level of honesty from any of you. Enjoy!

Posted by: Mark Matis at October 28, 2010 07:24 PM

No one is in charge of your happiness but you, Mark.

Life is hard, strong people are routinely called on to make impossible decisions that may include inexplicable sacrifices. Then we have the self-righteous, pusillanimous weenies who cower behind a keyboard, where they can protest about how they would save us all if only they could have more stench anxiety pills.

If you expect to lead your "civil war" Mark, you will not remain morally pure. You will no longer be allowed to use harsh words to defend yourself and your 'perfect world', will forever be irrelevant. In addition Mark, take that bar of soap between your thighs and put it away for another time, as destiny is almost ready to call on YOU to lead us on that magic bus ride where EVERYBODY gets to sit in front.

That is all

Posted by: Buck Turgidson at October 29, 2010 12:59 PM

I will sure remain far more morally pure than the stench who consider their oath of office nothing more than a formality to be ignored as soon as the badge goes on. Black's Law Dictionary even has a descriptor for fine "Law Enforcement" like you - "testifying". Look it up. Over 50,000 references in Lexis-Nexis for your fine performances, along with your other fine Brothers in Blue. Rule of Law? Nothing but Thugs with Guns that make the Mafia look good in comparison. The stench is overwhelming.

Posted by: Mark Matis at October 29, 2010 04:14 PM

I think the word you are looking for is "testilying." And yes, in virtually every civil case I have worked on where an officer testified, he lied (and I don't say that lightly -- these are instances where the testimony was directly refuted by documentation). In several cases, they even lied in situations where the truth would suit them better.

The only ones I haven't seen doing this in Texas are State Troopers, hence the "virtually". I used to include Texas Rangers in this... but then I had a Texas Ranger testify in a case, and that hope was shattered. (IANAL. Trial consultant. FYI.)

Posted by: Phelps at November 2, 2010 03:44 PM

I was Prosecuting Attorneuy for decades. Cops tolerated me because I was on "their" side. But I never was one of them and we all knew it.

It's been my observation that cops spend so much time dealing with scumbags they begin to see only two classes of people: cops and perps. If you're not a cop, you're a perp. We may not know what specifically you've done yet; but you're a perp nonetheless and so are treated with suspicion.

Concealed carry citizens honestly believe they're on the side of law and order - the cops' side. But they're not cops so they can only be perps. Worse, they're armed perps, which are dangerous to cops. Cops rightly fear the danger posed by armed perps; therefore, they fear concealed carry citizens and try their damndest to disarm them.

Cops know that shooting a perp is commendable while shooting a cop is contemptable. Scott's trouble is that in the eyes of those officers, Scott, as concealed carry citizen, fell into the dangerous perp category. They reacted to him as they would any Most Wanted Felon, instantly and forcefully. It was only afterwards they realized the shitstorm that would fall upon them for shooting a person whom the public wouldn't view as a perp, but would view as being as good as (or possibly even better than) a cop.

That's when the coverup started, and snowballed, and by now can't be stopped by anything or anybody inside the Department lest everybody lose their badges, their pensions, possibly even their liberty.

It's never the crime that gets you, it's always the coverup. I never had to explain that to my cops - their seniors took care of it for me. Looks as if someone needs to do that here.

Great job of reporting and analyzing the facts. Keep it up.

Posted by: joe doakes at November 2, 2010 03:51 PM

As for the traffic stops, I completely agree: they should not be happening.

I told my cops to "stop all violators, write all misdemeanors." When you pull someone over for a minor offense, you get to check for license, insurance, registration, wants or warrants and whether they've been drinking.

If you find something serious, take 'em. But if it comes back clean, give the driver a verbal warning and send her on her way. She'll be grateful for not getting a ticket; you'll avoid peer scorn for a cheap pinch; the public will see you running the lights which will slow them down . . . everybody wins.

But the surest way to lose a case is for the defendant to tell the judge the officer recently has written half-a-dozen harassment tickets. Judges hate that. If you truly were busy copping, you'd have no time to single out this individual. There's only one reason for it - the officer is being a bully. Judges hate that.

That's what it looks like in this case. It's a sign the cops lack professionalism. If the judges don't step on it hard, it'll be proof the system is entirely corrupt, no less than it was in the Bugsy Siegel first came to town.

Posted by: joe doakes at November 2, 2010 04:14 PM

Montie - Are you there? I have no doubt that Buck and Federale will be back to call Phelps and joe doakes liars and ask where they did their "time". But it looks like Montie can't handle the truth...

Posted by: Mark Matis at November 2, 2010 04:16 PM

My bet is that the judges WILL NOT step on it at all, and that Las Vegas was FAR better off under the Mafia than with the "Law Enforcement" and "Legal System" that they have today.

Posted by: Mark Matis at November 2, 2010 08:05 PM

Thank you Mike for continuing to connect the dots. Thank you Confederate Yankee for following this case. Some of us in the forum may need to be more cautious and polite with some of our words. Just because someone disagrees with your view does not mean that they are evil or stupid. Our Savior warned, "But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by they words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (The Bible, Matthew 12:36-37)

Posted by: DisabledVeteran at November 5, 2010 12:38 AM

When the option is civil war if the Rule of Law in line with the governmental limits imposed by the Constitution is not re-established, I would hope that God would be somewhat understanding. We are not far from open warfare. And the Eric Scott case may end up being the tipping point.

Posted by: Mark Matis at November 5, 2010 11:47 AM