Posted on 10/05/2010 6:01:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
That's not the point. Some here claim that if no round was chambered, the cops should have known that before they fired.
Do you have that ability, or would you make an assumption?
I would assume that it was loaded.
However, if I accused the guy of attempted murder, and it was found that the gun wasn't loaded, how would that stand up in court? Would I still get to speculate in court WITHOUT REBUTTAL that the guy "could have shot through his holster" or "he could have used an innocent bystander as a human shield"?
I'd get laughed out of court.
Really? Who posted that? Can you point us to the particular post?
Me too.
However, if I accused the guy of attempted murder, and it was found that the gun wasn't loaded, how would that stand up in court?
Since we've agreed that the cops couldn't read minds, how should they react to the threat of the loaded gun?
Would I still get to speculate in court WITHOUT REBUTTAL that the guy "could have shot through his holster"
We've got one of those 20/20 hindsight things going on here.
I thought we agreed they couldn't read his mind and couldn't tell if the gun was loaded?
When Scott saw Mosher at the door, he took the initiative to disarm himself. Mosher testified that Scott told him "I have a gun." In a normal situation that's the proper thing for a CCW holder to do, for instance, at a traffic stop, although I think Scott should have said, "I have a CCW and I'm armed." It's much less threatening.
I believe Scott then lifted his shirt to show that he was armed, and then began to reach for his holster and gun. Up to this point, I don't believe Mosher had issued any commands. But when Scott started to bring the gun and holster out, Mosher became alarmed and issued all the commands in less than two seconds and fired his weapon as Scott moved his gun toward him.
Yes - the 20/20 hindsight thing where Officer Mosher said at the inquest that he owns the same type of holster, and the gun could be “easily fired” while in its holster.
Without being challenged.
BTW - I'm still waiting for you to point out the post where "Some here claim that if no round was chambered, the cops should have known that before they fired."...
You don’t do very well with the English language, do you?
The cops can’t tell if a round is chambered, right?
Quit changing the facts to suit your narrative.
Scott had his back to Mosher, and Mosher touched Erik from behind. "[Shai] Lierley testified that an officer--presumably Mosher--touched Scott, who pushed his arm away."
Right.
Mosher got to pretend that he knew that Scott could shoot through the holster, which was covered up until Scott lifted his shirt, in the 1-2 seconds before he shot him. This was unchallenged at the inquest.
"Hey!It'smyholster!Hecanshootthroughit!BLAMBLAM!!!"
That was 9 seconds longer than Erik Scott got before the circular firing squad.
Geez - it's not enough that Metro had a one-sided smearfest at Erik Scott's expense.
Now we got the Internet Metrobots making $hit up wholesale to further smear Scott, and justify Mosher's panicked actions.
.
Minus the four seat cushions with the rocket fuel residue...
.
> “You don’t do very well with the English language, do you?”
.
The Toad doesn’t do well with anything.
Just a F’n shill for the statists and atheists is all he’s ever been.
.
Right.
So why does it matter now if a round was chambered?
Tell us again about the grassy knoll. LOL!
As I wrote, I believe the lack of a round in the chamber speaks more to Scott’s mind that anything else. It means he WASN’T a threat - and since he was not a threat, why did the cops act as though he was a gun-waving madman?
Suppose all the cops had been told was that there had been a disturbance at Costco, and they had entered with no other bias. Do you think they would have shot Scott the moment he moved?
The only way I can comprehend going from first word to first shot in 2 seconds is if the cops entered believing Scott was a very dangerous threat that had to be stopped before he killed someone.
Could they decide that based on <5 seconds of watching him quietly exit? No. That is why I believe some of the Costco employees have liability - their reports prepped the cops. However, I also think the cops will be found to have some liability, because a cop should be able to adjust to what he is seeing.
If someone is exiting quietly, the presumption of innocence means he shouldn’t be shot without having time to comply or explain. The scenario Moonman62 gives probably is pretty close. Add in that Scott KNEW he wasn’t a threat, and that the whole incident covers just a few seconds, and you have the death of a man who didn’t need killing.
If the cops are trained to behave the way Mosher did, then the training is wrong and the inquest should have insisted on a full review. Without it, there will be a repeat.
If the time line the DA displayed is correct, then I think the cops bear significant guilt. We expect and get more from our soldiers in a war zone. The LV Costco isn’t a war zone. If anything, the presumption of innocence should be stronger there than in Fallujah. It wasn’t. That is wrong.
.
I’ll tell you again about that finger that keeps finding its way into your nostril...
.
I've got a box of rocks that's sharper than you are.
So, you just keep rephrasing the same stupid line of "reasoning", over and over, till your debating opponents fall asleep from sheer boredom?
BTW, I'm still waiting for you to point out the post where "Some here claim that if no round was chambered, the cops should have known that before they fired."...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.