OK,assuming what you're saying is correct (no,I'm not calling you a liar) then,first of all,you feel bad for the guy having sustained a painful,long lasting injury in the military *but* being under medical care surely doesn't mean he wasn't an addict...as the result of long term use of narcotic drugs.It happens,trust me.Having worked for 20 years in an inner city ER I could tell you stories that would make your jaw drop.
And as for what represent lethal levels of a particular drug that is *not* open to debate.Clinical journals and textbooks have clear,unambiguous tables showing that if you have "X" amount of medication "Y" in your system then you're in serious trouble.Trust me on that too....my ER experience involved hundreds of such incidents.
Remember that the hearing only tells one side of the story.
True.But in a trial if it's established that he had huge amounts of habit forming,mind altering,drugs in his system and that he was under investigation for "doctor shopping" (a *classic* addict activity) then the reports of erratic behavior (and worse) could take on an increased level of credibility.Add a handgun (or two) to the mix and...well,I think you get the picture.
That was certainly the inference at the inquest because then it clears the cops of any wrongdoing. And you must know that prolonged use builds an immunity to meds and inhibits their effectiveness. That scenario also calls into question the expertise of a pain management specialist so it's quite a smear. What I read stated that surgery wasn't an option so long term management was the only alternative. And the cop that fired the first shot was VERY relieved at the news that Scott was on pain meds. If he was so "screwed up" why would there be such relief? Maybe because Scott wasn't "screwed up"?
In the last 4 years, this cop has shot 3 people, killing 2. We have a cop in the family. He's been one for 16 years. He's never shot anyone. Even when he works drug enforcement. This cop also said that he saw Scott had bloodshot eyes but he didn't see the gun was holstered? A lot of this doesn't make sense.
And as for what represent lethal levels of a particular drug that is *not* open to debate
But it does call into question the integrity of the autopsy.
and that he was under investigation for "doctor shopping"
He had a doctor. Again, this hearing is one sided and will make statements and NOT clarify them.
then the reports of erratic behavior (and worse) could take on an increased level of credibility
There were witnesses that disagree with the descriptor "Erratic" behavior. They refused to testify at the LV party but have talked to Robert Scotts attorney and will testify for them.