[Mr Rogers]

“Mosher complied with the laws of Nevada and his training based on the information he had.”

WRONG! Mosher ignored the most important evidence - WHAT HIS EYES SAW!

By every account, Scott was leaving quietly. Not one witness says Scott was acting in a threatening or hostile manner.

To go from “Is he the suspect?” to opening fire in <6 seconds, Mosher HAD to ignore the most important piece of evidence - what he saw: a man walking out of Costco, no gun in hand, no weaving around, no shouting, no panic among the customers - NOTHING to indicate he was dangerous.

SIX SECONDS before Mosher fired, he couldn’t even tell who was the suspect! And the physical evidence leaves no doubt that Scott had no intention of killing anyone - gun in holster, carried condition 1, hammer down.

So how did Mosher get from “No one stands out” to “I must shoot” in less than 6 seconds? Here is a hint - it wasn’t Scott. Scott didn’t have time. If you were walking out of a store feeling innocent and law abiding, and a cop shouted “Get down!”, would you be on your knees in 2 seconds?

If not, then a Nevada cop “compl[ying] with the laws of Nevada and his training based on the information he ha[s]” can shoot you dead. Justifiably. And as a number of LAPD officers have said before, they can say, “I thought he/she had a gun...”

Again, I haven’t gone back and tried to confirm the time line...but IF it is correct, then I doubt Scott ever got the gun in its holster pointed towards the cop. It takes me 2 seconds on a good day to get the holster off, and 2 seconds was all he had. Yes, I know there is witness testimony that he pointed a gun at the cop. I also know that most accident witnesses say they saw the plane in flames, even when there was no fire. Witnesses, like cops, sometimes see what they expect to see, and no one expects to see a cop shoot a man with a holstered gun - but Scott’s gun was found in the holster.

[kiryandil]

I watched an argument over on one of the Las Vegas news sites where a Metro defender kept posting that he could shoot a holstered weapon (of the type Erik Scott had) quite easily.

No one ever asked if there was a round in the chamber. I never carry with a round in the chamber, for safety purposes. Why do you suppose the question never came up at the inquest? I would think that Metro would have been ALL OVER IT if there had been a round chambered.

You'll notice that Moonman62 doesn't want to talk about it. All he wants to talk about is how Erik pointed a gun at a cop. Fat lot of good pointing a gun at a cop will do you if you're not locked & loaded...

Especially if you have 6 seconds before the first police hollowpoint blows your heart apart.

[Moonman62]

Sometimes threatening people with bad intent act cool when they are trying to elude the police, but I'm sure you already know that. Mosher was obligated to approach Scott to remove any threat. As soon as Mosher approached Scott, Scott reached for his gun, failed to follow any commands, and eventually pointed the gun at Mosher, which any CCW holder should know not to do if he's in his right mind. Some witnesses besides the cops testified that Scott looked aggressive, and was looking around as if to look for a way out. Everything Scott did reinforced everything the dispatchers told the officers on the scene about Scott: that he was armed, threatening, and under the influence of drugs. That was WHAT MOSHER'S EYES SAW!

And the physical evidence leaves no doubt that Scott had no intention of killing anyone - gun in holster, carried condition 1, hammer down.

You won't give up with the 20/20 hindsight will you? Based on what Mosher knew, Scott was just as likely to take a bystander as a shield and start shooting if he was approached with your method of courageous restraint and politeness.

Again, I haven’t gone back and tried to confirm the time line...but IF it is correct, then I doubt Scott ever got the gun in its holster pointed towards the cop.

IF you ever confirm your time line, then I will be interested in your theories derived from it.

Yes, I know there is witness testimony that he pointed a gun at the cop. I also know that most accident witnesses say they saw the plane in flames, even when there was no fire.

There was conflicting witness testimony. However, after six days of testimony, the jury unanimously decided in less than two hours that the shooting was justified. I'll leave it to you to determine which witnesses they found the most credible.

Witnesses, like cops, sometimes see what they expect to see, and no one expects to see a cop shoot a man with a holstered gun - but Scott’s gun was found in the holster.

The holster and gun were found on the ground no longer clipped to Scott's rear waistband where he should have left them.