Five in the back?
That explanation should be interesting.
That explanation should be interesting.”
I do not find the “Five in the back” shots hard to understand. There is always a bit of a lag between when a decision to shoot is made, and the shots being fired. My speculation is that one of the police “jumped the gun” with the first two shots, and then the other police opened up in reaction to the shots being fired. By that time, a lag of a second or so, Erik Scott had his back to the officers, so that is where the shots hit. As far as I can tell, there was no proper crime scene analysis of shots, body placement, blood drop analysis, etc. after the shooting. That would ordinarily tell us much more about who shot when and if there was anything in Erik Scott's hand when he was shot. When a person is shot, blood tends to fly all over the place, so a good analysis can determine a lot from the orientation and placement of minuscule blood droplets.
Real world forensics is not like CSI, but an amazing amount of information can be gleaned if good crime scene evidence collection is done.