And by implying that his behavior was NOT what dictated the officers response, we are left with no conclusion except that that INTENTIONALLY killed the man with murderous intent. There is no other conclusion.
Oh, please. We don't have to assign murderous intent, or even ill-will to these officers when mere incompetence will do.
They didn't intend to murder anyone, but by their inept, and inappropriate handling of the situation, they backed themselves into the moment they actually did have to fire.
IF multiple and conflicting commands hadn't been issued, and a single clear command to get on the ground, HAD BEEN issued, this thread wouldn't exist, and Scott would be alive.
IF they had observed the man's behavior for even a minute, IF they had gotten their information correct, even IF they had tackled and dog-piled him (uncalled-for, but still better than creating a live fire scene in a crowd) IF they had calmly approached the man and ask him to walk with them (they had all the backup and cover they needed for this) IF, IF, IF . . .
They did NONE of these things.
We don't tolerate cop-bashing on this forum. You'll notice I am only talking about THESE officer in THIS situation. But we have a lot of patience for those who defend the officers at all costs, regardless of the facts of the situation. If no-one is willing to call a spade a spade, then we are tacitly condoning the errors, and guaranteeing that they will be repeated.
Nevada is an open carry state and a shall-issue state. This could have happened to almost anyone here. Except those of us who take from this the lesson to disobey any command from a police officer to touch your weapon for any reason, even to "DROP" or surrender it.
I notice that no-one, so far, is willing to touch the truth and logic of my argument. Only blindly stating the officers were in fear of their life. No doubt they were. But that was a stage THEY set, a scene about which they had all kinds of choices about how to play it out. They chose wrong.