"Remember, the physical evidence proves Scott had no intent to shoot. It was impossible for him to do so." That is absolutely untrue! I have personally fired a Kimber carry by pulling the hammer back without pulling the trigger. By releasing the hammer before reaching the full cocked position, the hammer will strike the firing pin and send a round while also flipping the holster off of the weapon to release it from the holster.
And this little piece of deception you tried:
"He was hit in the buttocks and the bullet travel up into the body. Unless Las Vegas cops are as short as they are fat..." Um, since two of the police were behind him and Mosher in front, it would be natural to drop to the ground to fire at the suspect and remove yourself from the line of fire of the officer in front.
Your deceptions are clearly fabricated to serve an agenda. Your disgusting deceits expose your pretend perspective of objectivity. At this point, I wouldn't trust a single thing you assert. You are quite clever mixing your deceits in with some facts. You ain't what you claim to be, troll.
Well, I have problems with your rebuttal.
1 - I’ve never heard of anyone who carried a 1911 with the hammer down on a live round, and then planned on shooting it by fanning the hammer. Everything I’ve read said there are two ways to safely carry a 1911 - cocked and locked, or hammer down on an empty chamber.
I’ll post your technique on some gun forums to see if anyone else has heard or practiced that method. And if Scott was planning on it, then the testimony should have mentioned that there was a round int he chamber and that Scott might have been hoping to fan the hammer.
But frankly, I think your technique sounds like a real reach in an attempt to clear the name of a cop who admits he didn’t know the holster was wrapped around the gun. And the idea that someone pulls the holster with the gun so he can fan the hammer and blow off the holster while shooting it is nothing less than bizarre!
Also, before drawing (according to the testimony of Mosher), Scott announced he had a gun. Is that consistent with someone trying to outdraw and shoot the cops - to warn them?
2 - As I pointed out in my post, it seems the testimony does not support Scott being totally surrounded. If he was, it indicates gross stupidity on the part of the cops. And no one is claiming the other two cops dropped to the ground before firing. To pretend they did is to LIE.
I don’t know what your agenda is, but the truth isn’t part of it.
Lots more testimony (both sides, often conflicting the way normal witness testimony does) here:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/27/erik-scott-day5/