Monday, September 27, 2010

The New NRA Martyr?

Gunloons love a martyr. David Koresh, Randy Weaver, Timothy McVeigh.
Nothing fires 'em up more than a perceived injustice against a fellow gun-toting male.
Except, of course, if the gun-toter is, you know, not white.
Past NRA martyrs have, to put it mildly, had some baggage.
So, gunloons are pretty amped about the Erik Scott case:
Authorities said a Costco employee called 911 to report a man acting erratically in the store, damaging merchandise and carrying a pistol in his waistband. An officer approached the man, identified as Scott, then noticed the pistol and gave him verbal commands to lay on the ground, police said.
After Scott pointed the pistol at an officer, the officers fired at him, striking him multiple times, police said. He died at University Medical Center a short time later.

Scott was a West Point grad, an Army vet, and a CCW holder. And he was white.
I'd suggest reading the Las Vegas Sun archives on this case to get all the details but here's the Cliff Notes' version. On 10 July, Las Vegas Costco employees noticed a man acting strangely and damaging store merchandise. They also noticed he was carrying a handgun. As we all know, Nevada has some very lax gun laws but stores and businesses have the right to prohibit carrying firearms on their premises. A COSTCO manager approached the man, Erik Scott, and asked that he leave the store. Scott refused and began acting belligerantly toward the manager and threatened him. 911 was called and when police arrived, Scott refused to obey their commands. When Scott pulled his weapon and pointed it at an officer, he was shot several times and killed.
Naturally, the gunloons are promoting this as a case where tyrannical police overreacted to a (white) man exercising his God-given Second Amendment rights.
Of course, the gunloons omit a few details when painting the picture of this latest NRA martyr. One fact they don't like to talk about is that Scott had a bit of a drug problem. Another is that Scott had pulled a gun on a neighbor. And that two previous wives alleged domestic abuse.

Update: Edit to correctly identify NRA hero.


  1. Jadefool:

    Gunloons love a martyr. Timothy Koresh, Randy Weaver, Timothy McVeigh.

    Um . . . who is "Timothy Koresh"?

    And who in the pro-liberty advocacy movement has been trying to paint Scott as a martyr?

  2. What's the "pro-liberty advocacy movement?"

  3. I don't know about "martyr" but the reason any of this is questioned is that Scott's gun never left his holster when he was shot.

    MikeB questions any time someone is shot by the police when they have a knife and "lunge". You would think he would be all over this one too except for the fact that the dead man carried a gun which makes him far more inherently evil than knife wielding crack heads.

  4. "What's the "pro-liberty advocacy movement?"

    Also known as the "pro common sense movement", referred to in a derogatory fashion by the unscrupulous as "gunloons".

  5. I honestly don't know who's worse, the trigger-happy cops or the irresponsible gun owners.

    I must admit though, when an irresponsible gun owner does some really stupid shit like pointing a gun at the cops, that takes the steam out of the trigger-happy-cop argument.

  6. From what I have read, there are conflicting reports as to whether his gun was ever pulled out.

    The LVPD says he pulled his gun. The LVPD says he was acting irrationally, and damaging goods within the store.

    His girlfriend (admittedly, she has some stake in the issue) says that he was not damaging the products, but opened a package to see if the product within would fit inside his cooler--a reasonable expectation and investigation before purchasing. She also says that he was not acting irrationally, but did become agitated at being asked to leave his gun in his car.

    Several witnesses outside the store (the shooting took place at the entrance of the store) say that Scott never had his gun in his hand, and never reached for it.

    Costco handed over the tapes to the police, who will not release the video, and some have even suggested that such video will never be made public because it will implicate the police.

    Several witnesses also say that the police gave conflicting orders, and then opened fire before he could comply, and then once he was shot and down, the police fired additional shots into his back, killing him despite the fact that he was no longer a threat (if he had been a threat at all).

    As usual, we (the public) have half the facts and all the conjecture, but will not know the truth until the video is released.

    As for his background, it has no more play here than when a rape victim is discovered to have been a prostitute at one point. Does the fact that she was a prostitute mean that she can never say no to a sexual advance, or that she must submit willingly to forcible sexual assault because she chose to be a hooker?

    This man may have done all the things in his past that he is said to have done. That doesn't mean him getting shot in the back (if that is indeed what happened) by the police is acceptable or right.

  7. Jadefool:

    What's the "pro-liberty advocacy movement?"

    Guy Ohki already answered that well, but I'll just add that if you're happier with "anti-tyranny," than with "pro-liberty," that works just as well.

  8. Mike W: What you have read is not based on anything but speculation and the usual gunloon hyperbole.

    The GF you mention also claimed Scott was a Green Beret who had recently returned from Iraq. Neither of which was true.

    At the ongoing inquest, there has been unanimity that Scott was acting strangely. The store manager testified that Scott acted belligerantly and threatened him.

    Witnesses accounts vary but that's usually the case.

  9. Sagefool, I'm still not Mike W, though, thanks for the compliment.

    I am aware that it is speculation. That was part of my point. The other part of my point was that it was and is fruitless for us to debate the "facts" of the case as we have none! We can speculate all day long, but until the video is released, it will remain only speculation.

    As for the varying eyewitness testimony, it certainly is strinking that the majority of the eyewitness testimony varies greatly from the police version of events. Hence, the speculation.

  10. Mike W: Actually, the majority of the witnesses don't vary with police accounts. Even a CCW holder witness testified Scott's actions were unmistakeable.

  11. "I must admit though, when an irresponsible gun owner does some really stupid shit like pointing a gun at the cops, that takes the steam out of the trigger-happy-cop argument."

    I agree Mike as would most people. The reason there is even a question with this incident is that apparently his gun did not leave his holster, therefore he wasn't pointing it at a cop.

    Now, rather he made a move to provoke is another matter that none of us know the answer to. Without evidence to the contrary, I am willing to give benefit of doubt to the cop as I would if it were a knife "lunge".

  12. Scott made a number of mistakes that led to his death.

    First, he was carrying firearms when he was very likely impaired from the large doses of medications he was taking.

    Second, his bizarre behavior--the product of his impairment.

    Third, refusal to leave a business premise when requested.

    Fourth, refusal to obey police commands.

    Fifth, making sudden gestures while armed while having guns trained on him.

    Clearly, Scott screwed up about as badly as one can screw up. I expect to see repeats of this tragedy as more gunloons carry weapons around and have the attitude a gun makes them invincible.

  13. Well, as usual Jade has all the answers, and most, if not all, are wrong.

    There is no majority concurring with the police. In fact, the whole reason this story has reached the public eye was because there were plenty of eyewitnesses that disagreed with the police version.

    On your other post:
    First point--conjecture.
    Second point--conjecture.
    Third point--probably the ONLY point that everyone can agree on.
    Fourth point--conjecture.
    Fifth point--conjecture.

    Lastly, shouldn't you be happy to see more "gunloons" die? That'd give you blood to dance in and victims of "gun violence" all in one messy step.

    Oh, and again thank you for the compliment.

  14. Mike W: The first point isn't conjecture ( I think you should look it up).Scott was carrying and toxicology reports state he was heavily medicated. In fact, the coroner's office said his toxicolgy far exceeded lethal amounts for those not inured to the medications.

    The second point also isn't conjecture; there are a number of witnesses who attested Scott's behavior was bizarre--one even stated Scott had difficulty walking.

  15. Anonymous questions Jadegold mistaking him for Zorro:

    "Lastly, shouldn't you be happy to see more "gunloons" die? That'd give you blood to dance in and victims of "gun violence" all in one messy step."

  16. "Anonymous questions Jadegold mistaking him for Zorro"

    There's no mistaking one for the other. Zorro has a brain.

  17. No, Jade, they are both still conjecture. I don't need to look it up, but since you do, I'll define it for you. Conjecture is an inference made upon incomplete or inconclusive evidence or data.

    You do not know, despite the cornoner's report that his medication caused him to be impaired, nor do you know it to have been the cause of his "behavior." His inability to walk normally may have been due to injury.

    Since when is acting strangely and not walking the way Jade wants people to walk a death sentence?