And here you fall into the same trapped mentality the inquest did: instead of looking at the true state of things [after the fact] and comparing them to the subjective you are assuming a position and justifying it [or at least trying to].
They could read his mind after the fact?
If someone pointed a gun at you (not saying Erik did), would you assume it was loaded or not?
Hopefully, I would see the holster wrapped around it. However, the time line makes me suspect that Scott was fatally wounded before he did anything more than get the holster loose. I don’t think he had enough time.
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.