TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:Lots of experts in the room. I should excuse myself.

Better that you should ignore the troll comments completely, not even respond to them, and continue to provide insight where you can from your prospective.

Tough break for Eriks family..... likely the better choice as even the good fight, to find the truth was not going to win in the system in place at that location.

NOS wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:I thought this was interesting...

Mosher testified that he didn’t know that the gun was in its holster at the time he fired. He said he owns the same type of holster, and the gun could be “easily fired” while in its holster.

What type of holster allows access to the trigger area? Of what use is a holster that allows the firearm to be fired from within?

If that is the case, wouldn't that holster maker be sued on a regular basis! I would think a holster that allowed "easy" access to the trigger of the holstered weapon would be quickly recalled and discontinued. This statement makes no sense to me.

Definition of HOLSTER
: a leather or fabric case for carrying a firearm on the person (as on the hip or chest), on a saddle, or in a vehicle;

The inherent safety features, of a holster, or those designed into one, are above and beyond the purpose of a holster, which to carry the weapon..

Many here advocate only using a retention holster.., many here only carry in a IWB holster, some I'd venture to say,,, have a license, and stick the weapon in a jacket pocket, with no holster at all.

I place a weapon in a tank bag with no holster, not surprising to me at all, in 15 years of doing this the gun has never gone off by itself, and as far as I know, no tank bag manufacture has been sued because of a negligent discharge while the weapon is in the bag or being removed,, Same for holsters from what I found in a quick Google search....
BTW.. I would not use a holster that did not cover the trigger guard personally.. But that’s just a safety / design feature I choose to have on my holster.

That notwithstanding....

back to the post...

Mosher testified that he didn’t know that the gun was in its holster at the time he fired. He said he owns the same type of holster, and the gun could be “easily fired” while in its holster.

Did we not hear testimony that Erik had drawn the gun? Does that testimony and that of officer Mosher above not confect? Or am I missing something in context and timing of the event.

sjfcontrol wrote:

terryg wrote:Aren't most HDD for critical systems setup in a RAID configuration?

I doubt that the security cameras would be considered a "critical system". That's for systems who's failure would cause a loss of money, or business. Point-of-sale systems, servers for web-based businesses, backup systems, etc.

Loss prevention systems are considered a critical system in the two large corporate establishments I have an inside to. (wally world being one, the AFFES PX another)
There loss prevention surveillance systems are state of the art, and maintained as well as anything I have ever seen.
I’d bet a corporation like COSTCO is much the same.

stroo wrote:The shot in the left arm pit and the shot in the buttocks that traveled up into the body cavity would seem to raise some real questions about the shooting.

what does the 4 shots in the back do for your spidy sense

esxmarkc wrote:

Erik had lethal doses of prescription morphine and zanax (both are depressants) in his body, however he must have habituated to them because he appeared to be functioning normally.

I'd like to see a hair follicle regression that shows his long term drug history. With the position he held he appeared to be EXTREMELY functional. And from his appearance he appeared extremely fit - I mean work out every day kinda fit looking. On that much pain management (morphine) and on that kind of fitness regime? I'm not one that buys into conspiracies but this is starting to stink.

And why does any of this matter? If they yelled stop and he did not reach for his gun and they opened fire shooting him in the back several times then how does ANY of this matter? Isn't the sequence of events the only thing that matters here. I don't get it. I mean even if he was on every drug known to mankind and he was leaving the Costco after he ate a candy bar without paying for it first how is that relevant? The only thing I want to hear about is the sequence of events in the shooting.

Doc Bunny, in your expert opinion, is it likely that a person who was infused with what amounts to a normally lethal combination and amount of morphine and zanax as found in the defendants body to a act in a normal manner?
“No sir not likely”
Doc Bunny, in your 30 years as a (insert fancy Doc title) having treated thousands of people and prescribing these two drugs together have you ever seen a person with this amount (shows tox report) of drugs in there system act in a rational manner? “no” Be capable of relational behavior? “no”
Doc bunny, in your expert opinion when a person is taking such a serious and normally lethal dose of morphine and zanax are then normally capable of understanding complex directions or answering stressful requests? “no sir, I would say they normally are not capable of understanding those type things when so heavily medicated”
Doc bunny, one last question. Have you evr seen or interacted with a person who had this much morphine and zanax in there sytem? “yes” What was that person like? “they were unresponsive to directions given, failed to comprehend simple tasks I asked them to do, acted agitated and made furtive movements while acting very confused".

Thank you Doc Bunny, you are excused.

Something like that is what in a court it matters what the coroner found in his system. IANAL.. so I may be way off on my guess here.. but.. it seems possible.
.. Ask yourself,,, and be truthful.
If you and the LEO were in different places, you being accused or investigated for shooting a LEO. in a like set of circumstances. Don’t you think the tox report on the deceased LEO would be front and center of your defense plan?

I don’t like the whole situation, I’m not trusting of the system Erik is being looked at by, I dislike how the whole thing has been handled, and I don’t automatically take for granted that drugs in his system make him at fault…. I’m just saying.. in court, I understand why it makes a difference.