The sandals and tube socks prohibiting him from running/charging is just foolish speculation. I’ve run in sandals - with and without tube socks. The guy didn’t go out intending to run at a police officer, so he didn’t put on his running shoes and running socks. But, like most of us, when confronted with a situation he did the best he could (stupid decision, probably fueled by intoxicants if what we hear about the tox report is true). Maybe the sandals made him slightly less dangerous, but nobody can claim that a large man running at you in sandals does not pose a serious threat. I have lived in Samoa, and I have seen some pretty amazing things done by people wearing sandals.
I have tripped and fallen forward while running - without receiving the abrasions you base your argument on. Besides, 4 shots to the body and one in the eye can tend to slow a headlong rush to a deliberate plod.
“Downward” headshot (there was only one drawn in the top of his head) could have been sustained while falling.
I don’t know these things, nor do you. I make no claim as to what did happen - but I do know that several “witnesses” are obviously lying, and the type of speculation you are making “proves” nothing and does not support the certainty you claim.
You claim to know what the “forensics” show - are you a forensic scientist? Have you seen the autopsy report? If not, how can you claim to make an argument based on “the forensics”? You are correct, I cannot debate “the forensics” because I don’t know them, and I don’t think you know them either. I am simply debating your conclusions that you draw from uncertain rumors and imprecise information, based on faulty assumptions and a flawed progression.
Forensics were given in autopsy, 2 downward shots top of head other through eye, under jaw to collarbone. Shot while falling? sure, but no skin abrasions which happen when someone is moving and falls on concrete, not grass, etc. Common sense, hardly need scientist credibility.
Opinions, prejudices, sure, everyone has them, like yourself basing false assumptions on what certain witnesses said as you’ve commented on this thread.: That the guy charged the officer, which is what many believe. Sure he’s a scumbag for all the obvious reasons, and the officer in a perfect moral world would have benefit of the doubt, however with no abrasions and last 2 downward shots story doesn’t fit.
So back to square one, waiting on further forensic examination.