TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote: According to the testimony, Officer Mosher was waiting for Erik at the door and grabbed Erik's right arm as he was walking by Officer Mosher. Officer Mosher denied that he ever touched Erik and said he couldn't explain why the testimony indicated that he had.

That's too bad. If the officer had gone "hands on" with Erik, he may still be alive and a whole lot of people could have avoided this mess.

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?

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?

There are a lot of holsters that leave the trigger exposed. I used to have a nylon holster that just covered the front of the pistol enough to keep it in place, but the trigger was totally uncovered.

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.

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.

bronco78 wrote:
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.

So the 911 caller said Erik pulled his "firearm" and Officer Mosher said he thought Eirk had drawn his weapon. Based on the amount of time on the 911 call between the issued commands and shots fired it seems possible that Erik was removing his holster with the gun in it in an effort to comply with the verbal commands, but that officers perceived that as a furtive movement. There are a lot of assumptions in that statement and we still need a lot more testimony from the other people involved.

Someone on this forum had posted a link to a web-based program that flashed a bunch of pictures on the screen and you had to decide if the person on the screen was holding a gun or some other object (i.e. wallet, cell phone, etc.) and then decide to shoot or not shoot. I did pretty well, but it still seems like that could be a real challenge when the adrenaline was pumping.

bronco78 wrote: 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.

Only the fact that this is a total kangaroo court designed only to show the LVMPD in a positive light regradless of what the truth actually is.

That picture speaks volumes to me. No wonder honest law biding people are afraid to come forward.

AndyC wrote:

Something I made to show my disgust with the whole sorry affair.

It's intersting he had time enough to recognize the holster but couldn't determine the manner in which Erik was holding it. Was it like handing over a wallet or in a shooting grip? Erik's lawyer would probably like to ask that question if he was allowed to challenge testinomy. Judge (JOP) in this case should audition for Captain Kangaroo.

According to testimony Erik was using a SOB holster and had a Kimber (caliber not specified). I'm not Kimber expert, but I believe all Kimbers are 1911's, right? So that means the pistol would have been (or at least should have been) cocked and locked. After he was shot, the pistol was found on the ground still in the holster. The very interesting question would be, was the safety on? (I would assume it would be.) That would mean that Erik never attempted to shoot the officer.

This is an absolute travesty

Officer Mosher just testified that Erik had an Uncle Mike's IWB holster with a Kimber 1911 .45. If that's true, how does Officer Mosher explain his belief that you can shoot the gun while it's holstered? I think Mosher is lying. He shot Erik because he knew he had a gun, believed he was a Green Beret (he was not, but the store employee claims that Erik said he was) and was afraid that he only had seconds before Erik would overwhelm him with his supposed elite fighting skills.

Mosher was just asked if he was aware that Uncle Mikes doesn't make a holster that makes the trigger accessible. He stated, "I've never tried it, but I'm sure it can be done." And on that basis, he killed Erik. The guy is an out and out liar.

I've just found actual video of the inquest, and the testimony of Mosher!
http://www.encyclomedia.com/video-the_t ... omedy.html