Stop Exaggerating the Threat to Cops

As stated in "The Permit," cops are safer today than since the 1960s, but arrogant, selfish police unions and a lazy, complicit media's reporters continue to justify and excuse killer-cops' behavior by citing dangers to officers. A terrific writer, Radley Balko, documents the overt lies being promulgated by these self-interests in a new blog posting that sets the record straight.  — William B. Scott

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/the-agitator

April 9, 2013

Why We Need To Stop Exaggerating The Threat To Cops

The Huffington Post  |  By Radley Balko

Posted: 04/09/2013 1:19 pm EDT  |  Updated: 04/09/2013 4:23 pm EDT

The recent killings of two prosecutors in Texas, a Colorado Department of Corrections official and a sheriff in West Virginia have law enforcement groups and the media once again buzzing about an alleged "war on cops" or, in some instances, a broader trend toward violent anti-government sentiment. Over at The Atlantic, Philip Bump does a good job debunking that idea. (He also quotes me.)

Unfortunately, thorough and skeptical analyses of police fatality statistics like Bump's are rare. The "war on cops" talk heats up every time that one or more high-profile police killings hit the news. But there's just no evidence that it's true.

I've pointed out a number of times that the job of police officer has been getting progressively safer for a generation. Last year was the safest year for cops since the early 1960s. And it isn't just because the police are carrying bigger guns or have better armor. Assaults on police officers have been dropping over the same period. Which means that not only are fewer cops getting killed on the job, people in general are less inclined to try to hurt them. Yes, working as a police officer is still more dangerous than, say, working as a journalist. (Or at least a journalist here in the U.S.) But a cop today is about as likely to be murdered on the job as someone who merely resides in about half of the country's 75 largest cities.

You can read the linked pieces above for more evidence that police officers today are as safe as they've been in decades. But I want to discuss why it's important to push back against this "war on cops" narrative.

It should go without saying, though I will: This has nothing to do with trying to diminish the tough job that police officers do or to cast aspersions on those who have been killed. But there are other reasons why journalists need to do a better job of reporting this story accurately. (Beyond the hopefully obvious value of reporting things accurately for the sake of reporting them accurately.)

For example, one effect of false perceptions about the dangers of policing that I've noted before is that they can sway public debate on issues like police budgets, police use of force, police militarization and what sort of accountability cops should face when they're accused of violating someone's civil rights. Exaggerating the threat that cops face can make policymakers and public officials more reluctant to hold bad cops accountable or more willing to outfit police departments with weapons and equipment better suited for warfare.

This would explain why police groups tend to perpetuate the myth. But why does the media credulously report their narrative? Part of it is probably just laziness -- a lack of will or interest in seeing whether the claims are backed up by any data. The "war on cops" meme also fits the "if it bleeds, it leads" idea. "While this officer's murder is tragic, generally speaking, law enforcement officers are safer on the job today than they've been in 50 years" just isn't as interesting as "This may be part of a growing trend of cop killing."

Much of the media also appear to be infatuated with the idea that we're in the midst of a dramatic rise in anti-government, anti-authority, pro-militia, right-wing, white nationalist -- pick your extremism -- violence in America, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. (Just last weekend the Los Angeles Times ran a front-page report on the "sovereign citizen" movement, a group that authorities say is responsible for six deaths in 12 years.) In the interest of fairness -- or some might say false equivalence -- I'll note the conservative media seem just as enamored with the idea of a growing threat of violence from Muslim extremists and environmental radicals, again despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

But there's a more pernicious effect of exaggerating the threat to police officers. In researching my forthcoming book, I interviewed lots of police officers, police administrators, criminologists and others connected to the field of law enforcement. There was a consensus among these people that constantly telling cops how dangerous their jobs are is affecting their mindset. It reinforces the soldier mentality already relentlessly drummed into cops' heads by politicians' habit of declaring "war" on things. Browse the online bulletin boards at sites like PoliceOne (where users must be credentialed law enforcement to comment), and you'll see a lot of hostility toward everyone who isn't in law enforcement, as well as various versions of the sentiment "I'll do whatever I need to get home safe at night." That's a mantra that speaks more to self-preservation than public service.

When cops are told that every day on the job could be their last, that every morning they say goodbye to their families could be the last time they see their kids, that everyone they encounter is someone who could possibly kill them, it isn't difficult to see how they might start to see the people they serve as an enemy. Again, in truth, the average cop has no more reason to see the people he interacts with day to day as a threat to his safety than does the average resident of St. Louis or Los Angeles or Nashville, where I live.

Last week I had lunch with a certified expert in police use of force -- a guy who teaches classes to police about how and when to use force, how much to use, and under what circumstances. I'm fairly cynical, and I've just written a book that covers much of this ground, but I was still surprised by what he told me. In too many use-of-force classes, he said, cops aren't taught about appropriate vs. inappropriate force so much as they're taught what to say and do to justify whatever force they've already used. In other words, the courses aren't about training, they're about ass-covering. Today, these courses stress officer safety above all else -- including the civil and constitutional rights and the safety of the citizens the police are supposed to be serving. They teach cops to use more force, sooner, more often, and how to justify it after the fact.

The Force Science Institute, for example, trains law enforcement officials in how to investigate allegations of excessive force. But browse the archives of the organization's newsletter and you'll mostly see articles justifying the use of Tasers and questioning claims that they cause injury or death; justifying (or at least mitigating the criticism of) police use of force in even egregious, high-profile incidents (such as the 2009 Oscar Grant shooting); and promoting junk science explanations of in-custody deaths like "excited delirium." You'll have a much more difficult time finding articles about how to de-escalate volatile situations or how to create a police culture that emphasizes dealing with difficult subjects without using force -- or at least with the minimum amount of force possible. This is a group that certifies investigators of police shootings, police use of stun guns and other allegations made against cops, and their educational materials show a strong bias toward highlighting research that justifies force.

Back in 2008, a SWAT team in Lima, Ohio, raided the home of a suspected drug dealer. During the raid, one SWAT officer perfunctorily shot and killed the suspect's dogs. As he did, another officer was ascending a flight of steps in the home. That officer mistook his colleague's gunfire for hostile fire and, seeing some shadows coming out of an upstairs bedroom, he opened fire into that room. Inside was 26-year-old Tarika Wilson. She was on her knees, as she'd been instructed. She had one arm in the air and the other holding her year-old son. Wilson was killed. Her son lost a hand.

Officer Joseph Chavalia was charged with manslaughter (a pretty rare thing in these cases). At his trial, one use-of-force expert -- someone who trains police officers on when it's appropriate to use force -- actually testified that not only had Chavalia not done anything wrong, but if anything he was too slow to fire on the unarmed woman and her child. (Chavalia was acquitted.) This is the training too many police officers get today -- shoot first, worry about what you're shooting at later.

All else being equal, we should certainly strive to keep police officers as safe as possible. But cops assume a risk when they sign up for the job. That risk involves putting the safety of others above their own. That's kind of the whole point of having law enforcement officers in the first place. Many of the older cops I interviewed for the book told me that sense of sacrifice -- really the public service aspect of the job -- has been lost over the last few decades.

Of course, there are other factors that have contributed to the psychological isolation of police. One example is the move from foot patrols to squad cars or, more broadly, from proactive to reactive policing. When cops walk beats, they become a part of the communities they patrol. Residents see them out and about. They learn names, faces and places. When police patrol in cruisers, they're walled off from neighborhoods. Most of their interactions with the public on a typical day will be the result of conflict or confrontation. Imagine a job where nearly all of your interactions with other people are negative -- you're either confronting someone you suspect has done something wrong, dealing with a volatile domestic dispute, or responding to a complaint about a crime, most always after that crime has been committed. No matter what your job, if most of your interactions with other people are negative, it's going to make for a pretty miserable existence. Now add a baton, a gun, a Taser, and the authority to use force.

So we have cops whose interactions with the public are negative the vast majority of the time, who are constantly told they're fighting a war, and who are constantly reminded that their job is highly dangerous and getting more dangerous, and that they could be killed by anyone at any time. When they start to see the people they serve as the enemy, they begin to treat them that way. The people in the communities treated that way then respond in kind. Thus, we get the hostile, often volatile cop-community relationships we see in too much of the country today, in which citizens don't trust cops enough to help them solve crimes, and cops feel so threatened and isolated that even well-meaning officers won't report fellow officers who break the law.

The fact that cops are safer today than they've been in a half century is great news. It should be big news. It's something we ought to be celebrating. Reporting that and challenging -- or at least attempting to verify -- opposing pronouncements from law enforcement groups would not only be getting the story right; it would help with the problem of cops who see people as the threat and their jobs as a mere quest for survival.

"The Permit" - PR Web News Release

 Contact: Lisa Mayo-DeRiso

                Mayo & Associates

                702.576.2659

                mayoderiso@aol.com

                                                                                    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

THE PERMIT

 Techno-Thriller Unveils the Most Dangerous

Domestic-Terrorism Threat Facing America Today

Written By William B. Scott and Inspired by the real-life murder

 of his son, Erik Scott, By Las Vegas Police

LAS VEGAS (March 28, 2013) – The murder of a beloved son, a quest for truth and justice usurped by a broken legal system, and a battle with both grief and a blatant cover-up, led author William B. Scott to create a fictional tale rooted in every parent’s nightmare. The result is The Permit, a compelling techno-thriller novel based on the real-world murder of Erik Scott, who was gunned down by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers in front of a suburban Costco store in July 2010.

“My son, Erik, was murdered, because a BlackBerry in his hand was mistaken for a firearm. That senseless tragedy was magnified by a sloppy, transparent cover-up orchestrated to protect his killers and a Cartel of Corruption that controls Las Vegas,” said William B. Scott, bestselling author and Erik Scott’s father.  “It soon became apparent that the Cartel’s enforcers—rogue cops—were no different than dangerous domestic terrorists. In the past, rogue cops were a very small percentage of U.S. police forces. But that changed in recent years. Today, twenty-five-to-thirty percent of some police departments—including Las Vegas Metro—comprise ‘rogue’ or ‘bad’ cops. Every day brings another headline about American citizens being brutalized and killed by those who have sworn to serve and protect.”

-more-

The Permit recounts a dramatic “black operation” that launches in Las Vegas, Nevada, when Department of Homeland Security intelligence agents identify a new, incredibly dangerous terrorist “sleeper cell.” This group constitutes the most serious domestic-terrorism threat to national security the U.S. has faced since nine-eleven. In the past decade, it has killed more Americans than al Qaeda murdered on nine-eleven. These terrorists are deeply entrenched in our society. They look like us, talk like us, live in our neighborhoods and, for the most part, pass for respected citizens. But they are killing thousands of Americans throughout this great country—and becoming more militant and powerful every day. Their code name is INDIGO. Checkmate, a covert counterterrorism team, has the advanced-technology weapons and agents to neutralize INDIGO, but very little time to do so. If Checkmate fails, America will erupt in armed rebellion.

Why fiction? “When it became apparent that the traditional ‘legal’ process was failing my family,” Scott explained, “I turned to an effective asymmetric-warfare vehicle for revealing truth: entertainment. A story that blended fact and fiction would expose the Las Vegas Cartel of Corruption by showcasing its brutal methods and warped, venal objectives. It’s a proven tool called ‘Justice through Fiction.’”

Enthusiastic advance praise for The Permit, a fast-moving, high-tech thriller that sets a new benchmark for “Justice through Fiction:”

“With The Permit, Scott has taken personal tragedy and fashioned it into a work of art. He has expertly woven a complex story of intrigue into the thinly veiled account of his son, Erik's, 2010 Las Vegas ‘murder-by-cop.’ A heartbreaking tale, you can feel the love between the lines, but Scott never overdoes it with sentimentality, instead taking revenge by writing against the terrible injustices that befell his family. I…am awed that he was able to turn tragedy into triumph, which is just another example of his skill as a writer. A real page-turner.”  - Cathy Brown, Brooklyn, NY

-more-

" The Permit is one of those books that, once you start reading, you can't put it down. The excitement and intrigue of political and police corruption, the crime syndicate, high-tech ‘black world’ operations, and personal ambitions, all intermixed and centered around the murder of a young man, as he walked out of a ‘big box’ store with his fiancée, is skillfully crafted into a gripping, highly recommended book.” — R. Vondra

“Writing The Permit was also a way of grieving—my route to healing,” Scott added. “By blending fact and fiction, Permit lets readers experience a dad’s range of emotions, from crushing grief, anger and frustration to the satisfaction of seeing justice ultimately delivered by a covert government agency employing cutting-edge ‘black world,’ high-tech weapons.”

The Permit launches a series of techno-thriller novels built on a unique theme: “Fiction as a Legal Weapon.”    

The Permit is available now as an e-book at iBookstore, Amazon.com, Smashwords.com, and BarnesandNoble.com.

About William B. Scott

William B. (Bill) Scott is a full-time author. A former flight test engineer and aerospace journalist, he retired as the Rocky Mountain Bureau Chief for Aviation Week & Space Technology, following a 22-year career with the international magazine. He and his wife live in Colorado Springs, writing and developing the “Fiction as a Legal Weapon” brand of techno-thrillers derived from a premise established in The Permit. 

"The Permit" Now Available as an E-Book

Contact: Lisa Mayo-DeRiso

               Mayo & Associates

               702.576.2659

               mayoderiso@aol.com

                                                                                    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

THE PERMIT PUBLISHED

                                                              

Written By William B. Scott

Inspired by the Real-World Murder

 of His Son, Erik Scott, by Las Vegas Police Officers

LAS VEGAS (February 20, 2013) – The murder of a beloved son, a quest for truth and justice usurped by a broken legal system, and the battle with both grief and a blatant cover-up, led author William B. Scott to create a fictional tale rooted in every parent’s nightmare. The result is The Permit, a compelling techno-thriller novel based on the real-world murder of Erik Scott, who was gunned down by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police officers in front of a suburban Costco store in July 2010.

The Permit is available now as an e-book at the iBookstore, Amazon.com, Smashwords.com, and BarnesandNoble.com.

Enthusiastic advance praise for The Permit, a fast-moving, high-tech thriller that sets a new benchmark for “Justice through Fiction:”

“With The Permit, Scott has taken personal tragedy and fashioned it into a work of art. He has expertly woven a complex story of intrigue into the thinly veiled account of his son Erik's 2010 Las Vegas ‘murder by cop.’ A heartbreaking tale, you can feel the love between the lines, but Scott never overdoes it with sentimentality, instead taking revenge by writing against the terrible injustices that befell his family. I…am awed that he was able to turn tragedy into triumph, which is just another example of his skill as a writer. A real page-turner.”  - Cathy Brown, Brooklyn, NY

“An important real-time story written by an excellent writer. The author’s ability to retain your attention and convey the circumstances through well-chosen words is superb. Recommend this easy read to all. It was hard to put this book down. The issues are relevant to the gun discussions today and our changing societal values.” – James M. Stewart

-more-

“My son, Erik, was murdered, because a BlackBerry in his hand was mistaken for a firearm. That senseless tragedy was magnified by a transparent cover-up orchestrated to protect his killers and a Cartel of Corruption that controls Las Vegas,” said William B. Scott, bestselling author and Erik Scott’s father. “When it became apparent that the traditional ‘legal’ process was failing my family, I turned to an effective asymmetric-warfare vehicle for revealing truth: Entertainment. A story that blended fact and fiction would expose the Cartel by showcasing its brutal methods and warped objectives. It’s a proven tool called ‘Justice through Fiction.’

“Writing The Permit was also a way of grieving—my route to healing,” Scott added. “Through a blending of fact with fiction, Permit lets readers experience a dad’s range of emotions, from crushing grief, anger and frustration to the satisfaction of seeing justice ultimately delivered by a covert government agency employing cutting-edge, ‘black world’ high-tech weapons.”

The Permit launches a series of techno-thriller novels that builds on a unique theme: “Fiction as a Legal Weapon.”     

About William B. Scott

William B. (Bill) Scott is a full-time author. A former flight test engineer and aerospace journalist, he retired as the Rocky Mountain Bureau Chief for Aviation Week & Space Technology, following a 22-year career with the international magazine. He lives in Colorado Springs, writing and building the “Fiction as a Legal Weapon” brand of techno-thrillers based on a premise established in The Permit.

Police Brutality - Sheriff Mack Speaks Out

There is not one police or sheriff’s vehicle left in the country that bears the words “To Serve & Protect” emblazoned on the side.  Thanks to the Homeland Security Terrorism Department, and massive cash infusions into state and local law enforcement departments, these words have been intentionally scrapped and replaced with enlarged graphics simply reading “SHERIFF or (your town) POLICE”.

No longer the heros of our childhood, our local law enforcement agencies have morphed into para-military organizations whose personnel, in most cases, believe that the law does not apply to them.  After watching this short video, it is apparent that the officers involved are acting in a manner indicative of someone who believes that no matter how egregious their actions, they will not be held accountable—and in most cases, they are not.

This video is indicative of what happens when you allow the wearing of a badge to override the law.

(Courtesy of The PPJ Gazette)

Las Vegas Sun Story - The Permit - 2/8/13

Fictionalized account of son’s shooting by Metro Police cathartic for author

STEVE MARCUS

Bill Scott, father of Erik Scott, leaves the courtroom after a verdict in a coroner’s inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center Tuesday, September 28, 2010. The jury found that the shooting of Erik Scott was justified. Scott was shot and killed by Metro Police Officers at the Summerlin Costco store on July 10.

By Joe Schoenmann (contact)

Published Friday, Feb. 8, 2013 | 2 a.m.

Updated 3 hours, 42 minutes ago

COURTESY PHOTO

The book cover design for "The Permit" written by William B. Scott.

A new book by the father of Erik Scott, the 38-year-old shot to death by three Metro Police officers in July 2010, describes a corrupt power structure in Las Vegas — much of it within the police department — few care to imagine.

In "The Permit," author William Scott's fictionalized account, police here routinely dump bodies of young women into mine shafts for extra cash from the casinos.

It's so ugly that when one of the nation’s secretive three-letter agencies is enlisted by the president to cleanse the nation’s police agencies of bad cops — deemed domestic terrorists — it begins in Las Vegas.

Scott, a 66-year-old former writer for Aviation Week & Space Technology, admits the book became an outlet for the pain, still evident in his voice almost three years later, of enduring the burial of a son and what he believes was a bad shooting coverup orchestrated by Metro brass.

He is quick to add that while facts and figures about police shootings around the nation, as well as some of the technologies used by the espionage agency, are real, the characters in the book are composites of several people he has known over many years.

Even so, the book helped him deal with life without his son.

Here’s how he describes “Officer Krupa,” who fired the first shots at "Erik Steele":

• • •

Olek Krupa, a two-time killer, was one of Metro's "crazies," yet another blight on the department's seriously tarnished image. The jerk didn’t deserve to wear a Metro badge, but he was going to get away with killing an upstanding American patriot.

• • •

“It was cathartic for sure,” Scott said Wednesday by phone. “But there was a purpose to it, too — to assure the ‘cartel of corruption’ in Las Vegas that there is no escaping justice. They are incredibly smug in Vegas. Look at Captain Cover-Up, whom I will not identify, and see how cocky and smug he is on camera because they know Metro controls every officer and public official in Vegas.”

The “cartel” in the book consists of the sheriff’s department, the district attorney, the county public administrator, casino chiefs and, to some degree, the police union. Dialogue between officers is entertaining, if mostly dark. Here’s an exchange between officers involved in the Steele shooting days later:

• • •

“Hey, you look like hell, rookie!” Krupa said, smacking Malovic’s upper arm.

“Old lady holding out on ya?” Malovic shot the guy a withering glance. The comment was too close to painful truth.

“I … haven’t slept much.”

Krupa laughed, a cross between a rasp and giggle. “Awwww! Boo-hoo! Rookie got a spell of guilty conscience, and mama’s bitchin' about her darlin’ killing a perp?”

Malovic left the closet, ignoring Krupa's taunts.

“What’s keepin’ ya awake, rookie? First time ya ever shot somebody?”

Malovic crossed his arms and looked down at the pot-bellied officer. “Yeah, it is. Of course, you hosed that dude in oh-six, so no big deal. Kill once, and the next time's a piece of cake, right?”

• • •

Most of the real people from agencies mentioned in the book hadn’t heard about it when contacted earlier this week.

Sgt. John Sheahan, of Metro’s Office of Public Information, said Tuesday afternoon, “The sheriff had nothing but empathy for William Scott when (the shooting) happened; we’re not going to revisit this issue anymore or engage in a tit-for-tat.”

Chris Collins, Police Protective Association executive director, chuckled when told of the Scott's book.

“I don’t have any comment other than to say he certainly has a right to write a book,” Collins added. “If he gets some kind of solace and closure out of that, because I know he dropped his litigation because he wasn’t going to win — if this is his way of getting closure and eases the pain of his family, so be it.”

Scott dropped a civil lawsuit against Metro but one against Costco is still pending.

David Roger, who was Clark County district attorney at the time of the Erik Scott shooting and who now works for the police union, could not be reached for comment.

"The Permit" talks not only of the “Steele” shooting but includes a shooting death three weeks earlier of "Lashawn Miles," who was unarmed but shot in the head by an officer in his bathroom. In the book, both Steele and Miles were part of the federal spy agency.

In real life, three weeks before the Erik Scott shooting, a Metro officer shot to death Trevon Cole in his bathroom while flushing marijuana.

Before getting to the vengeance part of the book — some of the high-tech methods used to kill police and others, Scott writes in a beginning note, “do exist” — characters in the book lay out the reasons why rogue officers are considered terrorist threats.

It goes something like this: Bad cops erode the trust of the citizenry; when that trust erodes, the criminal element moves in, knowing people won’t call police for help. So crime grows. Now throw in a weak economy and large unemployment. Here’s how a character in the book describes what might happen next:

• • •

When the big-money honchos flush it, a hundred thousand folks will suddenly be out of work, on the streets, and royally pissed off. A spark like young Steele’s murder-by-cop, at precisely the right time and place, will blow Vegas to smither-frickin’-reens.

Metro’s killer cops will be hunted down by pickup-loads of armed-and-furious folks, and all-out war will erupt. The first casualties will be hundreds of Metro's brown-shirts, including a hell of a lot of good ones.”

• • •

Fiction?

Scott thinks it could happen.

“My message is, they cannot escape the fury of honest citizens and God himself; these guys are not going to get away with it,” Scott said. “You kill, you lie, you die. Now that’s not a threat to anybody. I wouldn’t want anyone to die. It is just an assurance that once citizens have had enough of their killer cops and their corrupt coverups, they will rise up and put these guys out of business.”

Sheriff Doug Gillespie reported in early January a 9 percent increase in crime in 2012 versus 2011.

Meanwhile, however, police shootings have decreased markedly in Las Vegas in just one year. After 17 Metro Police shootings resulted in 12 deaths in 2011, five police shootings resulted in four deaths in 2012.

The U.S. Justice Department also released a study of Metro in late 2012 recommending dozens of changes aimed at reducing police shootings. Before that study’s release, Metro had already begun undertaking several of the same or similar changes.

Scott said there was some interest in his book as a screenplay. He also plans to write a nonfiction book about his son’s death, which he said would prove a coverup.

He wrote the fictional account first, he said, because of an experience he had in the mid-2000s while writing for Aviation Week. At the time, various defense agency operatives were expressing their worries that in the event of war, a strike on military satellites would be devastating to U.S. defense capabilities.

Scott wrote about it in Aviation Week, but it barely registered with the nation’s powerbrokers, congressional leaders.

So he co-authored the book "Space Wars: The First Six Hours of World War III." In 2009, the authors wrote a followup "Counter-Space: The Next Hours of World War III." The books drew so much attention in Washington, D.C., Scott said, he was asked to address a congressional committee and later was asked to talk to people within the Central Intelligence Agency about some of the technologies at work in the books.

The experience taught Scott that “fiction is a very powerful tool for shaping perceptions.”

With such a lesson in mind, he stressed that though varying degrees of harm come to some characters in "The Permit," he doesn’t wish harm on anyone in reality; he simply wants justice.

“There are some things worse than death,” he added.

Asked what that means, Scott declined to answer.

("The Permit" is available electronically on Amazon.com and other websites; it is also going to be available in hardcover.)

"The Permit" Is Now Available as an E-Book

A revised version of "The Permit" was recently published as an "e-book," and is now available through  major commercial outlets, such as Smashwords.com, Amazon.com and the iBookstore. It will soon be available at BarnesandNoble.com, as well.

The e-book can be downloaded to most commercial e-readers, such as the Kindle, iPad, Nook, Sony e-reader, Kobo, etc., or as a PDF that can be read on any computer.

The as-published version is about 15,000 words shorter than what was serialized here, and the e-book contains a number of new scenarios and plot elements. Consequently, the version that appeared online over the past year has been removed.

A major publisher is currently reviewing the manuscript, and may release "Permit" in hardcopy-print within the next year.

I hope you enjoy "The Permit" in its revised, updated form.

Cheers,
William B. Scott

Update 20: The Pitfalls of Interviews

This is the latest "Update" written by Mike McDaniel, a former law enforcement officer with years of experience. All of Mike's excellent, in-depth analyses of Erik's murder and the subsequent egregious cover-up by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept. are available at:
 http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/category/erik-scott-case/

The Erik Scott Case:

 Update 20: The Pitfalls of Interviews

In the Erik Scott case—and many others—I have often cautioned readers about witness testimony.  Update 8 dealt with the topic in some detail.    Understanding its pitfalls is one of many reasons I cannot bring myself to watch TV cop dramas, or indeed, much of what passes for police realism at the movies.  The entertainment industry commonly depicts witnesses in one of two ways: (1) the virtuous, absolutely accurate citizen misunderstood by the police until they are unquestionably proved right, and (2) the liar who is eventually exposed and prosecuted by virtuous police officers.  These stereotypical characters fit well into common narrative structures, but in reality, eyewitnesses are influenced by a bewildering variety of factors, many of which are not obvious to investigating officers, and many of which will never be known to investigating officers.

In cases like the Scott shooting–which happen very quickly and unexpectedly–eyewitness accuracy is further hampered by three overwhelming factors: (1) there was a tightly packed crowd of several hundred people, making a consistently, clearly unobstructed view of the action difficult or impossible for many in that crowd, (2) from the first shouted, contradictory command until the first shot struck Erik Scott, only two seconds elapsed—if a witness wasn’t in a position to see that action from the beginning, it would be unlikely they would see much of anything—and (3) From the moment the first shot was fired, virtually everyone in the crowd was running, ducking, hiding and sheltering loved ones with their bodies from what they were certain was uncontrolled, wild police gunfire in the middle of that crowd (an entirely accurate assumption on their part).

Even so, a substantial number of people did see the beginning, the action, and the aftermath of the shooting. The accounts of many of these witnesses are accurate, at least in part.  Some are wildly, almost comically, inaccurate, and others are almost completely accurate.

How can the police know—how can anyone know—which witnesses to believe?  In this case and any other, the best indicators are independent physical evidence and common sense.  Is what witness A says physically possible?  Can it fit into the independently established and accurate time frame?  I’ll discuss this in more detail shortly.

There are a wide variety of other factors to consider as well.  Was the witness actually in a position to see what they say they saw?  Do they have particular prejudices that might influence their statements?  A number of witnesses in this case gave fulsome, even fawning praise of Metro and the officers that killed Erik Scott.  Any competent investigator should be particularly careful about accepting such testimony.

Another important factor is the very nature of the situation.  Many people will naturally assume that if Scott was shot by the police, he must have had a gun, a factor that many in the crowd were reinforced in believing by rumor rushing through the crowd as they asked why the store was being evacuated as they were leaving the Costco that day (store employees told customers there was a man with a gun in the store).  This factor alone could lead people to “see” a gun in Scott’s hand when no gun was present, or turn a cell phone on the ground near his body into a gun.  It could—and did—turn any and every arm or hand movement on his part—in the perception of some witnesses–when challenged by Officer Mosher, into a deadly threat.

Another factor is the possibility of undue influence by Metro.  Many of Metro’s handpicked witnesses have Metro ID numbers, indicating the possibility of records, or perhaps active investigations.  We know that Metro is not only capable of, but appears to engage in, the intimidation of witnesses, as even in the Scott case, they harassed Samantha Sterner with multiple chickenshit traffic citations, and engaged in similar abuses with many that dared to display a magnetic Erik Scott memorial ribbon on their vehicle (Update 7, Update 7.2 and Update 8 provide in-depth information).  Metro also engaged in a completely unethical, unprofessional, and potentially criminal, interviewing tactic with virtually every witness subjected to a taped interview.

INTERVIEWING RESPONSIBILITIES: 

Patrol officers and detectives have very different responsibilities.  In a case like the Scott shooting, patrol officers must identify each and every potential witness.  It doesn’t matter if they saw only a portion of the action, it’s vital that anyone who saw anything be discovered and if possible, kept at the scene.  If they cannot be kept there–they’re not under arrest, after all–their complete contact information must be gathered and preserved so detectives can follow up later.  The police never know when the smallest fragment of information might provide a break in the case, or the key to solving it.

Patrol officers are also commonly responsible for having each witness complete written statements on the spot.  They all carry forms for this specific purpose, and there are specific protocols for how those forms must be completed.  Those common protocols were repeatedly broken in this case.  The patrol officer’s job is to handle things until detectives can arrive, and then, as quickly as possible, to get back on the street to handle other calls.

Detectives are responsible for the in-depth investigation that follows the patrol officer’s preliminary investigation.  It is their job to re-interview every witness from whom the patrol officers obtained written statements and to find and interview everyone they did not.  It is their job to dispassionately gather and analyze all evidence and come to a just conclusion, which can lead to not filing criminal charges—virtually always the case when a Metro officer might be charged–or the opposite.

In professional agencies, polices and procedures are in place in the interviewing process to ensure that statements are not influenced—inadvertently or on purpose—by investigators.  It is ridiculously easy to do this.  Most people are at least somewhat intimidated by the police and many have a subconscious tendency to try to please them.  At the very least, they will try to give the police what they  think the police want.

INTERVIEWING TACTICS OF THE UNPROFESSIONAL AND CORRUPT:

In agencies that are less than professional, agencies—arguably like Metro—that are primarily interested in supporting the pre-determined narrative and in protecting their own hides, there is a common—and unethical, unprofessional, and potentially criminal—technique for statement manipulation.  Why criminal?  Subordination of perjury, a felony which means encouraging others to lie.  It works like this:  a detective sits down with a witness and conducts an interview, an interview they tell the witness is being recorded for later transcription.  But when the interview is over, the detective says: “oh no!  That darned tape recorder didn’t work again!  I’m sorry, but we’ll have to do the interview over.”

Why would a detective do this?  It allows them the opportunity to hear, off the record, everything the witness knows.  During the second interview, they are prepared to shape the interview by failing to ask certain questions, by failing to bring up certain topics, by cutting off certain answers, and by channeling the questions and answers to fit their narrative rather than gathering all the facts.  If a witness is silly enough to try to bring up things the Detective doesn’t want on the record, he’ll interrupt, confuse and obfuscate the conversation, and will certainly fail to ask the kind of rational and necessary follow up questions the statements of the witness would provoke in any competent investigator truly interested in the truth.  And of course, that darned tape recorder can fail–again–without warning.

Another tactic commonly employed—and a dead giveaway to professionals—is taking far too little time to conduct a competent interview.  The interview of Officer William Mosher—the man primarily responsible for the death of Erik Scott—took only 15 minutes.  The Interview of Officer Joshua Stark—who fired one round into Scott’s back as he fell, face-first to the ground—took only 10 minutes.  The interview of Officer Thomas Mendiola—who fired four rounds into Scott’s back and was later fired for giving a firearm to a felon—also lasted only 10 minutes.  Only two other officers were interviewed—Dustin Bundy (four minutes) and Dean Vietmeier (two minutes).  Their interviews are discussed in the same link as Mendiola.

In my police career, I routinely conducted interviews lasting an hour and more, even for misdemeanor crimes.  A ten or fifteen minute interview of an officer who shot and killed a citizen is, by itself, an enormous red flag.  No one, not Sherlock Holmes himself—could possibly come close to conducting a competent, professional and minimally complete interview in such a ridiculously brief span of time.  Even establishing a rudimentary timeline of the event would take considerably longer.  However, if the detectives were interested only in checking certain boxes in the predetermined narrative, 10-15 minutes would be sufficient.

During the trial-preparation process for the first civil suit in this case (which was dropped by both parties), a great deal was discovered when witnesses initially interviewed only by Metro were professionally interviewed by investigators working for the Scott family, or were deposed.  Virtually every witness noted that Metro detectives used the “that darned tape recorder didn’t work again,” ploy.  If their equipment was so defective, one might expect them to get working gear.

Witness and Las Vegas Public Defender Howard Brooks, was one of the prosecution’s handpicked Inquest witnesses.  He did not stick to the narrative and the prosecutor treated him as a hostile witness, attacking him repeatedly on the stand—his own witness in a hearing with no adversary.  Here is some of his testimony from that Inquest:

And I had one purpose in talking to this officer, and that was to avoid what I see over and over again in murder cases.  And that is…that police always get a statement that’s off the record, and it allows statements to be characterized in all sorts of ways because there is no record of it.

I told the officer, ‘Look, I want to give a statement, but I want it to be on the record.  I want it to be taped.” …he said ‘No problem.’  I gave a very detailed statement.  And then at the end, he goes, ‘well, my tape machine wasn’t working so we’ll have to do it again.

 WHO TO BELIEVE?

How can the police—or a jury—know whose testimony is most credible?  Who should be believed and who must be ignored?  The best way to proceed is to believe those whose statements accord with common sense and with independent evidence.

Is what a witness says reasonably possible?  Some slick lawyers will try to convince people that anything is possible, but clearly, “anything” is not.  Monkeys will never fly out of my posterior, I will never be transmogrified into a beautiful woman—even intensive surgery wouldn’t help there—and a tiny gun at home on Scott’s nightstand cannot simultaneously be in his right front pocket at the Summerlin Costco to be shot and damaged by Off. Mosher.

Does the evidence support the statement of a witness, or contradict it?  I’m not suggesting that the witnesses are knowingly lying.  I have no evidence to believe that.  However, I do know how badly wrong witnesses statements can be–even when given in good faith–and how easily they can be manipulated without the knowledge and consent of a witness.  What follow are some general indicators of what I’m saying.

GENERAL TRENDS IN THE METRO INTERVIEWS:

Many witnesses to the Scott shooting later contacted Scott’s attorneys and told them Metro refused to interview them.  Despite their telling officers at the Costco after the shooting that they were eyewitnesses and wanted to give their testimony, they were told to go home and that Metro would contact them if they were needed.  The officers did not take their names or contact information; there was no way they could be contacted.

This is an indication of gross incompetence, cherry picking, or both.  Any supervisor for whom I ever worked, learning I had done that would have visited swift and terrible punishment upon me, and rightfully so.  The last thing any professional police force wants the public to think is that they are not interested in hearing citizens who want to give them information relating to police matters and crimes.  Competent agencies spend a great deal of their time trying to win the trust of the public and convincing the public to talk to them.  This is particularly true in an officer-involved shooting where professional agencies are very careful to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.  Refusing to take the statement of a citizen would certainly give that appearance.  On the other hand, a police force interested only in supporting the narrative by handpicking specific witnesses would be expected to do exactly that.

Attorney Brooks was a rare exception: he would not take “no” for an answer, more or less forced Metro to take his statement and later turned the tables on them during the Inquest.

The Encounter:  We know beyond any doubt, by means of the 9-11 recording of Costco Security Employee Shai Lierley, which recorded Mosher’s shouting and the gunshots, that from the moment Off. Mosher began yelling contradictory commands at Erik Scott until the first gunshot, which touched off the fusillade of seven police bullets in the middle of a crowd of hundreds, only two seconds elapsed.  However, Metro’s handpicked witnesses could not remotely agree.  Their estimates of the time involved ranged from five to 30 seconds.  One witness suggested that Scott actually engaged in a lengthy argument with Mosher; no other witness said anything remotely like this.  Most, in fact, did not see or hear Scott say anything to Mosher—he didn’t have time.

The Gunshots:  Independent evidence (to whatever degree Metro can be trusted) suggests a total of seven rounds were fired, but the estimates of witnesses ranged from two to five and various vaguely stated numbers.  Some saw Mosher shoot Scott, some saw Stark and Mendiola shoot Scott, but none saw Scott shoot at anyone.

Scott’s Gun:  As I proved in Update 19, Metro’s own evidence and actions clearly indicate that Erik Scott could not have drawn his Kimber .45 and surely could not have dropped it on the pavement where he was shot.  Even so, a few witnesses were sure Scott not only drew a gun, but pointed it at Mosher.   However, even they could not provide a clear description of the gun they believed they saw.  A few believed Scott might have had something in his hand, which might have been a gun.  A few thought he might have been holding a gun in a holster.  At least one thought Scott was holding a holster—there was no mention of a gun—and several believed they saw something in his hand—and something on the ground near his body, something described as a small gun, a gun rug, something black, something brown, even “a clip.”  What is remarkable is the number of transcripts that avoid any mention of anything on the ground near Scott’s body.

Attorney Brooks again provided interesting—and from the evidence, accurate—Inquest testimony on this topic:

…at this point, Erik Scott is falling to the ground on his face.  He is either on the ground, or he was falling to the ground, and officers two and three [Stark and Mendiola] commence shooting him as he’s falling on the ground on his face…

If the officer one [Mosher] had not killed him, it seemed to me clearly that officers two and three were making certain he would not be alive… I then circle around beside the first officer, trying to look at the body… I don’t see a gun anywhere around him.  That’s what I was looking for.  But I could see the bullet holes in the back.

Mosher and Scott’s Actions:  One area where most witnesses agree is that all three officers present—Mosher, Stark and Mendiola—had drawn their handguns long before Scott and Samantha Sterner walked out the front door of the Costco.  The majority of witnesses also agree that Erik Scott was behaving unremarkably.  He was just another of the several hundred Costco Customers calmly walking out of the store that day in response to the Costco evacuation request.  Most who actually saw the beginning of the confrontation also agree that when confronted by Mosher, Scott was surprised.  A few thought that when Mosher pointed his weapon at Scott and began to yell at him, Scott appeared to be “agitated.”  This might be a believable observation for Erik Scott and virtually anyone else.

NOTE: Police officers normally do not draw their weapons unless they are in imminent, deadly danger, and most agencies have rules governing this issue.

A few witnesses suggested Scott drew a handgun in one way or another.  More saw only Scott moving his right hand in one way or another, some saw it moving toward Scott’s back, others his front, and one saw both hands moving toward his waist at the front of his body. One witness thought Scott was only “gesturing” with his hands, and another witness thought Scott might have pointed a gun at Mosher with his left hand.  Scott was right handed and his handgun was holstered behind his right hip.

Dr. Edward Fishman–a physician–who gave both a written statement and a taped interview, never saw a gun in Scott’s hands, but did see him reach for his side and possibly pull up his shirt slightly, which caused Mosher to shoot him.  During his inquest testimony, Fishman said:

It [Mosher's yelling at Scott] was all very confusing.  I was hearing commands, “Drop it, drop it’ is what I thought I heard.  And there was nothing in Mr. Scott’s hand to be dropped.

Fishman, like Brooks, carefully looked for a gun on the ground near Scott’s body and saw none.

One witness—a minister—argued that Scott actually pounded the customer service counter with the butt of a chromed gun to get the attention of Costco employees and came out of the Costco with that gun in his hand.  Not only did the employee who waited on Scott fail to back up that wild statement, there is no doubt that Scott had only his Blackberry in his right hand when he left the Costco.  That is the only thing on the ground near his body after he was shot.

Another interesting omission is that detectives failed to ask witnesses who believed they saw a gun on the ground near where Scott had been shot precisely when they made that observation.  As my theory of the case indicates, Scott’s .45 was found in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.  Even Mosher’s statement reveals he did not actually search Scott after handcuffing him, and he did not find Scott’s .45 (or any gun) which was still in its holster, inside his waistband behind his right hip.  Mosher also did not find the Ruger in Scott’s right front pocket and his interview says nothing about it, despite the fact that Mosher claimed he was worried that Scott might be wearing body armor (under a t-shirt in Las Vegas summer weather) or another gun).  It would have taken only about 15 minutes once the .45  was discovered in the ambulance to retrieve it and place it at the scene, making a time frame for such observations an important matter.  Of course, anyone working to support the narrative would ignore this important fact and assume the gun always had to be present.

Mosher’s Commands:  Witnesses had a wide range of beliefs about these commands, which again, they felt took from five to 30 seconds.  Some could not hear anything being said, and others heard only a tiny portion.  Some heard things Mosher clearly did not say.  Some, despite these handicaps, felt Mosher was giving Scott clear orders, which he must have been refusing to obey.  Even Officers Stark and Mendiola said they had no idea what Mosher was saying, but were sure it must have been commands which Scott was disobeying.  They also said they had no idea who fired, so of course, they both had to shoot Scott.

Mosher actually said:

Put your hands where I can see them now; drop it, get on the ground; get on the ground.

If Dr. Fishman and Mr. Brooks can be believed—and independent evidence supports them, not Metro—Scott had nothing in his hand apart from his Blackberry.  Even Mosher, in his taped interview, admitted that only a few hours after killing Scott, he had no idea where Scott’s hands were.  If he did not know where Scott’s hands were, why was he ordering him to present his hands?  If Scott never had a gun in his hand—a hand which location Mosher did not know—why was Mosher ordering him to drop “it?”  Drop what?  And better yet, why, fractions of a second later, if Scott was actually threatening him with a gun, did Mosher suddenly develop the urge to forget about telling Scott to drop the gun, and instead order Scott to get on the ground?  Remember that the best evidence, the Costco security camera feed, has vanished under highly suspicious circumstances.

Even if Scott understood and could process each of these contradictory commands in the span of two seconds, he could not possibly have had time to respond to one, let alone three distinctly different commands demanding three distinctly different actions.  No matter what Erik Scott did—or didn’t do—he was dead the moment Mosher laid eyes on him.

Several of Metro’s handpicked witnesses said Scott did not move and only stood stock still before being shot.  Several said he raised both hands in a sort of common “surrender” gesture.  Common sense and independent evidence suggests these witnesses should be taken seriously.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

Next Monday, I will post Update 20.2, which will provide representative summaries and excerpts from some of the interviews to which I’ve alluded in this article.  In Metro’s files, they run more than 500 pages—Inquest transcripts and depositions run hundreds more, so there is simply not space to include them all, or even a substantial portion.

Even so, some interesting trends did develop.  A surprising number of witnesses were upset at Metro for starting a circular firing squad in the midst of a large crowd of innocents.  A somewhat smaller number expressed amazement that innocents were not shot by the police.  Bystanders did not escape uninjured.  An elderly woman in a wheelchair, trying to duck for her life, tumbled from her wheelchair onto the pavement, badly scraping her arm.  Doubtless others suffered cuts and scrapes, but Metro’s reports make no mention of this.  A few witnesses actually took the officers to task for failing to simply let Scott walk into the parking lot, away from innocents, before approaching him.

What is remarkable about the transcripts is the methods used by Metro.  Many statements mention nothing about a gun, or a gun on the ground near Scott’s body.  These are two of the most important facts in this case, yet detectives appear to have simply forgotten to bring them up to many witnesses.  In many interviews, when a witness was clearly about to stray from the narrative, detectives immediately changed the subject, dropped that line of questioning, interrupted, argued with them, or otherwise stopped them.  The same is true for a wide variety of important factors, factors any competent investigator would have been sure to cover in great depth and detail.

In many respects, the interviews–so poorly done are they–raise far more questions than they answer, which is never a good thing in any investigation.

More than anything, I continue to be amazed by the incredibly poor quality of police work in this case.  Either Metro is systemically incompetent, or they are so corrupt they are willing to appear to be hopelessly inept because the truth is far, far worse.

As always, I’m certain readers are more than capable of making up their own minds.  I hope to see you again a week from now.