Comments: The Erik Scott Case, 14.3: The Officers Speak--Sort Of (Concluded)

I have read every word of the analysis of the Scott case. As a citizen I am frightened. The fact that police are SO poorly trained, have little regard for life, feel they can justify the killing of any citizen, even if they must lie about the surrounding events, belongs in the 3rd world. In the U.S. we expect our police to stay calm in potentially dangerous situations as they know, or should know, that police work is in fact a dangerous profession. The killing of a citizen, by a police officer(s) should carry the highest scrutiny as their authority depends on the citizens having confidence in their professionalism. The Scott case has the exact opposite effect.
The law "requires" that a little old lady, inside her home, who hears someone breaking into her home, must first determine if that person is a lethal threat to her 'before' she may defend herself with a firearm or other lethal force. If the law requires this degree to caution from an ordinary citizen inside her home, surly it is not too much to ask that law enforcement officers be held to an even higher standard. Law Officers are sworn to uphold the law. It seems that in the Scott case the only thing that was upheld was protection of a very corrupt organization.
I, for one, am sad that I no longer feel protected by Police Officers. The heroes of my childhood have turned out to have clay feet.

Posted by carol at August 21, 2011 12:18 AM

I'm not sure why anyone would find any of this surprising. This is what policing has turned into.

Essentially, the story is, "After an exhaustive investigation of the police, the police find the police did nothing wrong."

Move on, Citizen. Nothing to see here.

Posted by Dale Franks at August 21, 2011 02:08 AM

Dale:

You appropriately left out the DA & jury reviews. And any state, FBI or DOJ review, if they wish. (of course, were not sure why they don't??)

Also, do not forget the Civil action that's pending, which I suspect will expose & solve the entire plot. And if not, we can remonstrate about that for months, maybe even years!

Posted by Buck Turgidson at August 21, 2011 08:57 AM

DOJ not coming in? Hummmm.....could it have anything to do with 'politics'? That is certainly the case in the Guerena case. DOJ is not going to come in and step on toes of other Democrats.

Posted by carol at August 21, 2011 10:10 PM

Indeed Carol,

DOJ didn't have an issue with toes in NO, Newark, Portland, Seattle, Albuquerque, LA or Miami. Don't confuse provisional political appointees with career DOJ employees, while not perfect they do a fair job.

And please tell me, WHO had the power to annul the Guerena 'color of office abuse' probe?

Posted by Buck Turgidson at August 22, 2011 12:17 PM

Mike,

Can you do a follow-up on the near-shooting in in Kansas City from November 2010?

Might be a good example, either good or bad, of discipline and investigation!

Thanks!

Posted by SSG Fuzzy at August 22, 2011 04:01 PM

Buck, before you hold up those "career DOJ employees" as good examples, you need to remember two things:

1. Every one of them is a member of SEIU or other unions.

2. Those career DOJ employees, even after being "politicized" by Bush, gave to Obama 2-1 in 2008.

Posted by SDN at August 22, 2011 10:09 PM

SDN:

I suspect you missed the word "fair", as in 'fair job'. Comparing than to a 'good job' or 'very good job'. Typically 'political appointees' ("renters", as we use to call them) leave career employee alone, but not always, as we saw Hillary terrorize the Travel Office employees. And when I say the career DOJ employees do a 'fair job', whom are YOU countering them against?

Federal employees have belonged to unions (FFA, AFGE, NTEU, NFFE, NAGE, NATCA) for over 60 years, most of them (at least 50) are AFL-CIO affiliates I believe. I did read where SEIU members gave Obama $28 million, which is far less than what Soros gave him!

Forgive me, but I'm not sure what's the point of your union issue is?? Do the DOJ lawyers even belong to a union? As many medical doctors do, I know several attorneys that belong to professional associations for the purpose of collective liability & medical coverage.

Surely your not begrudging that?

Posted by Buck Turgidson at August 23, 2011 10:56 AM

"gross incompetence or cover-up." Neither. A complete disregard for our Constitution; arrogance that criminals - aka cops and others in government - can and do get away with committing crimes against the people; and a society that is more preoccupied with watching 'dancing with the stars' rather than with watching who's 'dancing with our rights.' Wake up, America. We have lost our rights and your loved one could be the next victim. It's just a matter of time.... count on it!

Posted by TigerLily at August 23, 2011 12:36 PM

Buck, on the real planet Earth, union = Democratic Party. Period.

Posted by SDN at August 23, 2011 09:21 PM

SDN,

I can tell you gave your response a great deal of thought.

Explains much!

Posted by Buck Turgidson at August 24, 2011 09:12 AM

For those who obviously know nothing about the United States Attorneys Office and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. None of staff attorneys at either, Assistant United States Attorneys or Trial Attorneys at the USAO or CRD respectively, are unionized. So regarding AFL CIO or SEIU, they have nothing to do with the staff attorneys at either. Support staff, e.g. clerks, etc. can join a union but they have no input regarding prosecutorial decisions.

And from having worked with CRD before, they are radical leftists who literally hate cops. They will come down like a ton of bricks if they could, but they got nothing to go on. And it doesn't matter what political party runs the local government, they just hate cops.

But, as usual, Mike forgets the facts of the case. Erik Scott was dead man walking when he took his drugs and strapped on two guns. There is no evidence that Scott would have responded in any other manner to any approach by law enforcement.

And some are forgetting that Mike's original evidence that Scott was innocent was that he was a "business man," ex-Army, and had a CCW. None of that establishes that Scott did not draw down on the officers.

Now regarding the two missing rounds. What is their import? Those two missing rounds were not found in Scott, nor in anyone else. Could they have been misses, sure. Was that a potential danger to the public, yeah. But, again, speculation is not evidence. Perhaps he under loaded his magazines. It is, of course, irrelevant for this inquiry because they are of no import.

I also am interested in this mysterious sergeant, but I also noted that Scott's girlfriend falsely claimed that Scott was a Green Beret. That interests me as it goes to her credibility, but it is also irrelevant, as was Scott's occupation, former military service, and his CCW. As irrelevant that he attended West Point. Of which I might note there has been no outpouring of support which Mike thought would occur.

Why, because it brings us back to the central point in that Scott is dead because he made a very bad decision to use drugs and carry two guns, then draw down on three cops. Talk about bad tactics.

Posted by Federale at August 26, 2011 10:43 AM