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?
Really? Who posted that? Can you point us to the particular post?
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.