The testimony is reasonably consistent that Mr. Scott raised the gun above his waist holding the gun by the handle, but in a cloth holster that he could have shot through. Any CCW permit holder in Nevada (I was trained in Nevada) learned among other:things:
1. Never point the gun at anything you do not intend to destroy.
2. If you are interacting with police, do not touch your gun under any circumstances without asking and receiving permission to do so.
By pointing the gun, the police had a right to assume that Scott was going to shoot.
Scott may have been impaired and not thinking clearly. Scott may not have intended to shoot. Scott's internal intentions do not matter. What matters is what he actually did and what the police reasonably believed as a result.
Sad.
Of course, as the Scott family will point out, the coroner's inquest tells only one side of the story. It was not an adversary proceeding, where both sides present their conflicting points of view. Mr. Scott's lawyer had no opportunity to question (cross examine) the witnesses. Although from the news reports, it appears that the prosecutor tried to present the case fairly, I am sure that questions remain in the minds of the Scott family and their lawyer. We'll see, but the case right now looks pretty solid for a justifiable homicide by the police.
No comments:
Post a Comment