Sad story. One thing for sure that I know is once they said for me to get down. I would have gotten down and then definitely would NOT move to get the weapon. I would have just stayed on the ground until the situation was under control. Every weapons shooting I read has the person reaching for something. Why reach? The police said get down....that is all. Nothing about taking out the gun. Prayers to his family.
The police said get down.
They also shouted drop your weapon. (according to the article)
They gave conflicting commands and then shot the guy for complying.
Scott’s weapon was a Kimber 1911-type gun. It had its hammer down after the shooting, which means Scott was carrying with no round in the chamber. To fire it, he would have had to pull the gun, rack the slide, and then fire.
It may be that since he was aware it was impossible to shoot his gun without several steps, he didn’t think about how a cop - not knowing what type weapon it was - would interpret an attempt to disarm. Or maybe he thought that was the simplest was to calm things down.
Could the cop legally fire as soon as he touched the weapon? Maybe. If the cop believed his life was in danger, then yes - even ‘tho Scott obviously (in retrospect) had no intent to shoot. However, a cop so spring loaded to shoot that he didn’t notice the movements were slow, or that the gun was still in its holster (the cop who started the shooting testified he didn’t know the gun was in a holster until after the shooting was over), is a cop who needs to find a new line of work.
The cop has shot 3 times in 4 years, killing 2. There is no way he has the right temperament or judgment for being a cop.
As for the other two - if you continue to fire after the guy is face down on the ground, you aren’t ready to be a cop either. Find other work until you gain some self-control and judgment.
That's not what the article stated:
"Get on the ground!" "Drop your weapon!" and "Keep your hands up!"