No the point about sandals and tube socks was, trying running in them. Meaning not the best for speed. In addition, defies common sense that one would charge a guy with gun from distance unarmed, of course, this kid was thug, so anything is possible.
No it’s not possible to fall forward moving and have no abrasions on cement. “My version”? Naw, just the forensics, which you couldn’t debate right? Meaning no abrasions to fit a charging thug theory, and downward headshots meaning guy must be already down since officer isn’t over 6’ 4”.
Both sides have witnesses saying something, who knows.
Again, still waiting for complete forensic investigation.
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.