wow - first I have heard of this drug stuff
can you point to a source? Not that you word isn’t golden, mind you, I just want to see why this took so long to come out....
The drugs were for an injury while in the Army (he had been taking them for most of his adult life) and a recent car crash. People who have taken painkillers for 15 years don't respond to them the way you or I would - a point not made at the inquest. Think Rush Limbaugh.
In any case, I don't see how that justifies the cops shooting a man whose gun was still in its holster, nor the tactic of confronting him in a crowd as opposed to asking him if they can talk...
The LV Metro PD needed a bunch of extra time to put together a nice smear package, so they postponed the inquest numerous times so they could dig up stuff like the back injury pain medications and the next door neighbor with the dog who bit Erik Scott.
During the kangarooinquest, the Metro smear artists showed charts which proved that Erik had multiple toxic doses of these drugs in his body.
When Moonman62 posted Metro's drug smear above, you'll notice that I asked him "So, can you explain why these two drugs didn’t kill Erik Scott on the spot?" nearly an hour ago. While he had time to reply to you (you posted AFTER I did), he strangely didn't have to reply to me. Either he missed my post, or he's got an agenda.
Fortunately, Mr Rogers has shown a spotlight on the Metro "drug addict" smear tactic:
Scott was on prescription painkillers. If the prescription drugs affect your judgment, then it is illegal to carry. If they do not, it is legal to carry. At the inquest, Scott was accused of shopping for prescriptions, but there was no rebuttal allowed nor was it proven.
The drugs were for an injury while in the Army (he had been taking them for most of his adult life) and a recent car crash. People who have taken painkillers for 15 years don't respond to them the way you or I would - a point not made at the inquest. Think Rush Limbaugh.
You'll notice in the Metro smear that the "judgment" part about carrying falls out (because the casual dupe is taken in by the "drug-crazed addict" gambit - ala Rush Limbaugh), and that the part about increasing tolerance over time fell out, because then the "drug-crazed addict" case is easier to make.
What was laughable about Metro's experts was that they told the inquest that he had many times the toxic dose of both of those drugs in him - but they forgot to explain why.
Just as Moonman62 did...