*sigh*
You can tell the credibility of that charge by the off-handedness with which it is mentioned.
A man was acting erratically, opening packages and swapping out product. He had enough drugs in his system to kill most of us, but had been using drugs long enough and taking enough of them to have built up a tolerance. He had been "doctor shopping" to facilitate his prescription drug use. He had a gun in a holster that had been concealed but was spotted by an employee. He was told he could not have it in the store, but he wouldn't leave.
911 was called. The dispatcher was told of an armed man acting erratically. The store was evacuated and the police responded. Despite the evacuation, the man with the gun kept shopping.
When he finally came out, he was told to show his hands and get on the ground. Instead, he reached back to where the police had been told he had a gun. He pulled it out and pointed it at one of the officers. He and the other officers shot the man.
It turned out that the gun was still in its holster. However, the officer reasonably believed that he was in imminent mortal danger because, in the split second he had to decide what to do, he saw a gun pointed at him. He was not the only one who saw a gun (as opposed to a holstered gun). Civilian witnesses testified that the man pointed a gun at the officer (not a holstered gun).
Why the shooting happened?
1. The man carried while under the influence of a large amount of prescription drugs.
2. He did not leave the store when told he was not allowed to have a gun there.
3. He did not follow the instructions of the officers to show his hands and get on the ground.
4. He reached to where it was known he had a gun.
5. He pulled out something, which in the split second in which a life-and-death decision had to be made, looked like a gun to almost all of the witnesses, civilian and police, and pointed it at one of the officers.
For these reasons, the shooting was ruled by a jury to be "justified."
Don't take the word of the person who made the off-handed remark. Heck, don't take my word, even though I laid out the detailed situation. Read it for yourself. Read the testimony or, if you don't have the time to go through a week's worth of testimony, read the excellent summaries of each day's testimony.
I will edit my post to add the links to those summaries as soon as I can dig them up--yet again.
The links:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/coroners-inquest-erik-scott/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/erik-scott-day2/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/25/erik-scott-inquest-day4/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/27/erik-scott-day5/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/28/erik-scott-inquest-day6/