No; that's your THEORY emanating from the facts.
He reached for the weapon with his GUN HAND, NOT his left hand, and should the officer have waited while he got fired upon?
I don't know what the "facts" ultimately are, in terms of INTENT. What I DO know is that several witnesses have testified to the agitated, incoherent, and wobbly conduct of the deceased, which was BEFORE the officer confronted him.
This officer might be a loose cannon, but rendering judgement that the deceased was trying to surrender the weapon is pure conjecture on your part.
“He reached for the weapon with his GUN HAND, NOT his left hand......”
Huh? Was Erik left or right handed and why that does it matter when the officer told him to drop it?
From lvmp1066:
“Fact: Erik Scott complied with Mosher’s instructions. He put his hands up. He told the cop he had a gun. He was told to drop it. He attempted to comply and in the process of doing so was shot to death.
Two witnesses in a row testify that the weapon Scott was holding at the time he was shot wasn’t even accessible for fire, as it was fully enclosed in a “gun rug.”
The DA’s office is attempting to make people believe that Scott could have somehow pulled the trigger through the fabric of either the gun rug or the holster shown in this article. Grasping at straws to make the cops look good, nothing more.”
He was going to do one of two things, shoot a, or more police officers, or not.
Motive? I’d say there was more motive not to shoot, then to shoot, what with being outnumbered, drunk/drugs, not having or expecting anything towards the police. Further, the gun was in its holster, supposedly a good one, so that is more towards the physical evidence that he was disarming, in his mind, clouded as it was.
He didn’t rob the place. He wasn’t a criminal, or a real dirty biker, or frankly a hip hop minority. He just seemed to be carrying and drunk/drugs.
He didn’t raise the gun, point the gun. He didn’t have any reason, nor say anything about harming anyone, or the police.
It seemed to me a rigid, by the book, not too thinking, bureaucratic shooting. It seems the second and third shots were reactive, and with out cause.
I’d describe the shooting as a politically correct. Imagine if there was an armed guard at Costco, or you in the store and armed. Would you have shot the guy? He’s carrying, with a girlfriend, stumbling around and leaves.
So, basically he was shot for not well enough, or fast enough, or correctly obeying. That was his crime.
It’s odd that the police who are so hands/gun orientated during/after a shooting, don’t notice the hands empty and don’t just walk up to the guy, and his shopping cart, and girlfriend, especially when there are multiple officers.
Oh well, no doubt LVPD is a crazy, rough, weird, bad crime place. And the guy was living in his do you know I went to West Point delusion. Bad intersects, karma, chemistry.
The gun was holstered. And what does it matter what hand he used?