• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No indictment in police shooting death of Ohio man carrying air rifle

sangha said:
I like how it is out of bounds to impute any motive for the caller, even though we know he got things wrong and has a history of lying, but we can't do the same for Crawford who did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that we simply don't know his intention in what he said, even when it was wrong. The caller does hold culpability here too, but I have no idea what he should have done differently. We cannot say what he truly believed he saw while watching Crawford. I would definitely not have told him to get closer or talk to someone with what the caller is claiming. If he really didn't see any of what he reported happened, then he shouldn't have reported it as such. But I can say what Crawford should have done differently. And that is he shouldn't not have been walking around a store with a BB gun, swinging it around as if no one would feel threatened. He should not have been so completely oblivious to what was going on around him that he doesn't even notice police officers coming up on him until his first reaction, even if only small, ends up being perceived as a threat. The cops could have possibly used other force, but they were dealing with what they believed (because they had information that said that he appeared to load the rifle in the store and that he had "aimed" it at other people) could have been a mass shooter.

Every person on this planet has a history of lying. On average, everyone lies at least 10 times a day. So that is plain stupid to even say.
 
roguenuke said:
Time and place do matter here. It is not common for someone to be walking around a WalMart, with a weapon, let alone swinging it around, while it would be extremely common for people to have weapons at a dove hunt. It is probably not even that rare for people to be mishandling those weapons. Audience also comes into play here. The audience at a WalMart is not going to be anything like the "audience" at a dove hunt when it comes to weapons.
Click to expand...

If openly carrying a weapon in public is enough to give police the excuse to kill someone (after the police gave him a generous second or two to comply with their order or be killed), I might if I lived in Ohio work to repeal open carry laws. It's a bit unbelievable that several seem willing to attribute bad motives to the person for what is legal to do in Ohio.

And I agree about the 'audience' at Walmart. It's why I don't support open carry laws, and don't support concealed carry for people without a demonstrated need for a firearm. It's not that I'm scared of guns or gun owners - been around both my entire life, and own and shoot rifles, pistols and shotguns regularly. It's because it's impossible to tell at a glance if a person with an AR slung over his shoulder is a good or bad guy, or just picked up the rifle that morning and can't reliably operate the safety. Same with that guy with a Glock on his hip. For all I know, he's a drunk and just broke up with his girlfriend and will shoot the first person who crosses him. I'm not comfortable with weapons wielding total strangers. Mistakes with firearms are often deadly.

But if a state is open carry, the police are obligated to respect the law and not shoot a person dead for doing nothing illegal, and only arguably unsafe. The response to unsafe is "Cut the crap - learn how to handle your weapon elsewhere!" Not calling the SWAT team and them issuing an order that cannot reasonably be met then killing the person when that order isn't met.
 
countryboy said:
It's just you. You have no way of determining that based on a grainy video synced with audio of a 911 call released for media consumption only. And not suitable for in depth analysis.
Click to expand...

I guess we can't evaluate evidence that we haven't seen, but the video synced with the audio is better evidence than in 99% of similar incidents.

And what we do KNOW is an innocent person posing no actual threat and breaking no law, who threatened no individual, stalked no one, pointed the gun directly at no one, minding his business in a deserted corner of Walmart talking on the phone, is dead.
 
roguenuke said:
I'm saying that we simply don't know his intention in what he said, even when it was wrong. The caller does hold culpability here too, but I have no idea what he should have done differently. We cannot say what he truly believed he saw while watching Crawford. I would definitely not have told him to get closer or talk to someone with what the caller is claiming. If he really didn't see any of what he reported happened, then he shouldn't have reported it as such. But I can say what Crawford should have done differently. And that is he shouldn't not have been walking around a store with a BB gun, swinging it around as if no one would feel threatened. He should not have been so completely oblivious to what was going on around him that he doesn't even notice police officers coming up on him until his first reaction, even if only small, ends up being perceived as a threat. The cops could have possibly used other force, but they were dealing with what they believed (because they had information that said that he appeared to load the rifle in the store and that he had "aimed" it at other people) could have been a mass shooter.

Every person on this planet has a history of lying. On average, everyone lies at least 10 times a day. So that is plain stupid to even say.
Click to expand...

Yes, the caller "maybe believed" he was an ex-Marine. He "maybe believed" the fraudulent facts he wrote on his application to the Marines. He "maybe believed" that the guy was loading the gun. He "maybe believed" the gun was pointed at two kids. :roll:
 
JasperL said:
If openly carrying a weapon in public is enough to give police the excuse to kill someone (after the police gave him a generous second or two to comply with their order or be killed), I might if I lived in Ohio work to repeal open carry laws. It's a bit unbelievable that several seem willing to attribute bad motives to the person for what is legal to do in Ohio.

And I agree about the 'audience' at Walmart. It's why I don't support open carry laws, and don't support concealed carry for people without a demonstrated need for a firearm. It's not that I'm scared of guns or gun owners - been around both my entire life, and own and shoot rifles, pistols and shotguns regularly. It's because it's impossible to tell at a glance if a person with an AR slung over his shoulder is a good or bad guy, or just picked up the rifle that morning and can't reliably operate the safety. Same with that guy with a Glock on his hip. For all I know, he's a drunk and just broke up with his girlfriend and will shoot the first person who crosses him. I'm not comfortable with weapons wielding total strangers. Mistakes with firearms are often deadly.

But if a state is open carry, the police are obligated to respect the law and not shoot a person dead for doing nothing illegal, and only arguably unsafe. The response to unsafe is "Cut the crap - learn how to handle your weapon elsewhere!" Not calling the SWAT team and them issuing an order that cannot reasonably be met then killing the person when that order isn't met.
Click to expand...

This is not reality. And he wasn't shot and killed for just open carrying. He was open carrying a gun, unsafely and in a place that raised suspicions about his intentions. Although legal, it is still can cause issues that ultimately can, and in this case did, lead to someone getting killed.
 
sangha said:
Yes, the caller "maybe believed" he was an ex-Marine. He "maybe believed" the fraudulent facts he wrote on his application to the Marines. He "maybe believed" that the guy was loading the gun. He "maybe believed" the gun was pointed at two kids. :roll:
Click to expand...

I believed the guy was trying to load the gun because on the video, it looks that way to me. I have no idea what made him believe (if he truly did) that the guy was pointing the gun at some kids. The Marines thing is an after-the-fact issue, not connected to the phone call at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with the situation besides some people trying to use it to discredit the guy's character. It doesn't in any way prove that the guy lied to the 911 operator. It really doesn't show anything.
 
roguenuke said:
I believed the guy was trying to load the gun because on the video, it looks that way to me. I have no idea what made him believe (if he truly did) that the guy was pointing the gun at some kids. The Marines thing is an after-the-fact issue, not connected to the phone call at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with the situation besides some people trying to use it to discredit the guy's character. It doesn't in any way prove that the guy lied to the 911 operator. It really doesn't show anything.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It shows why the police should not believe or rely on the reports of civilian eyewitnesses
 
JasperL said:
I guess we can't evaluate evidence that we haven't seen, but the video synced with the audio is better evidence than in 99% of similar incidents.

And what we do KNOW is an innocent person posing no actual threat and breaking no law, who threatened no individual, stalked no one, pointed the gun directly at no one, minding his business in a deserted corner of Walmart talking on the phone, is dead.
Click to expand...
Now you are presenting an opinion contrary to what we can view on the video. I guess it's perfectly acceptable for you to embellish the facts, but entirely egregious when the 911 caller appears to do the same. Tsk tsk.
 
roguenuke said:
I'm saying that we simply don't know his intention in what he said, even when it was wrong. The caller does hold culpability here too, but I have no idea what he should have done differently.
Click to expand...
Tell the truth. He could have simply told the police the truth that we all saw as we watched the video. Crawford was not threatening anyone. Crawford didn't point the "gun" at anyone.

If he thought he saw Crawford doing these things, he wasn't looking at Crawford.
We cannot say what he truly believed he saw while watching Crawford. I would definitely not have told him to get closer or talk to someone with what the caller is claiming. If he really didn't see any of what he reported happened, then he shouldn't have reported it as such.
Click to expand...
If what you believe isn't what's happening, doesn't that make you at the very least, crazy?
But I can say what Crawford should have done differently. And that is he shouldn't not have been walking around a store with a BB gun, swinging it around as if no one would feel threatened. He should not have been so completely oblivious to what was going on around him that he doesn't even notice police officers coming up on him until his first reaction, even if only small, ends up being perceived as a threat. The cops could have possibly used other force, but they were dealing with what they believed (because they had information that said that he appeared to load the rifle in the store and that he had "aimed" it at other people) could have been a mass shooter.
Click to expand...
1 - Show me where in the video (outside of the caller who is clearly not seeing correctly) does anyone feel threatened by Crawford. Show me in the video where Crawford behaved in a threatening manner.
2 - Crawford, and any person not doing anything illegal, shouldn't need to live in a state of fear that his or her actions may be perceived as threatening. It's not the responsibility of law abiding citizens to be ever-vigilant of other people's fears.
3 - No one, not engaging in any illegal activity, should be walking around prepared to react when cops arrive on the scene. This points back to point 2.
4 - No... the cops should not be using ANY force against a person who's not threatening them or others in the public.
 
roguenuke said:
This is not reality. And he wasn't shot and killed for just open carrying. He was open carrying a gun, unsafely and in a place that raised suspicions about his intentions. Although legal, it is still can cause issues that ultimately can, and in this case did, lead to someone getting killed.
Click to expand...

It's really that simple. Why some feel the need to continue this Kabuki dance, is beyond me. Tragic, yes. Mystifying, no.
 
roguenuke said:
This is not reality. And he wasn't shot and killed for just open carrying. He was open carrying a gun, unsafely and in a place that raised suspicions about his intentions. Although legal, it is still can cause issues that ultimately can, and in this case did, lead to someone getting killed.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean it's not "reality" to expect other Walmart patrons and/or police to not assume a person legally carrying a rifle is an imminent threat warranting the SWAT team response. If that's not reality, then Ohio has no business with an open carry law. If carrying a rifle in Walmart is suspicious, and police assume anyone doing this entirely legal act is a mad man who gets one second to prove he's not before killing him, then it shouldn't be legal to carry a rifle in Walmart. And of course I don't think it should be legal to do.
 
countryboy said:
Now you are presenting an opinion contrary to what we can view on the video. I guess it's perfectly acceptable for you to embellish the facts, but entirely egregious when the 911 caller appears to do the same. Tsk tsk.
Click to expand...

What facts did I embellish?
 
roguenuke said:
The first guy isn't holding the gun at all. No hands on the weapon, not swinging it around. The second guy, same thing. They don't have any hands on those weapons. It has absolutely nothing to do with their skin color and everything to do with the situation, what they are doing with the weapon.
Click to expand...
No comment on the video where a veritable strike force arrives for a man walking down the street in an Open carry state. Why so selective on what you comment on? You reflexively defend the White Guy in the photo but ignored the video. This is becoming very transparent.
 
roguenuke said:
I believed the guy was trying to load the gun because on the video, it looks that way to me. I have no idea what made him believe (if he truly did) that the guy was pointing the gun at some kids. The Marines thing is an after-the-fact issue, not connected to the phone call at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with the situation besides some people trying to use it to discredit the guy's character. It doesn't in any way prove that the guy lied to the 911 operator. It really doesn't show anything.
Click to expand...
Yep, a guy with a long history of lying probably lying even if it looks like he was.:roll:
 
countryboy said:
All of them?
Click to expand...

I'll make it easy. Here's a numbered list. Which of those did I get wrong?

1) innocent person
2) posing no actual threat
3) breaking no law
4) threatened no individual,
5) stalked no one,
6) pointed the gun directly at no one,
7) minding his business in a deserted corner of Walmart
8) talking on the phone,
9) is dead.
 
Luftwaffe said:
My BB gun doesn't have a red tip either, and it shoots metal BBs with a pretty decent muzzle velocity, it's kind of scary now that I think of it.
Click to expand...

Someone herein clarified, the tip marking is only for actual toys.
 
sangha said:
Wrong. It shows why the police should not believe or rely on the reports of civilian eyewitnesses
Click to expand...

They have to sometimes. What if the civilian had been right? What if it was a real rifle and the guy holding it had been disturbed? What "clues" would the police have to actually show them this in that few seconds of seeing him? How would they know that he wasn't raising that rifle to shoot one of them or someone else?
 
reinoe said:
Yep, a guy with a long history of lying probably lying even if it looks like he was.:roll:
Click to expand...

Everyone has a "long history of lying".

We're All Lying Liars: Why People Tell Lies, and Why White Lies Can Be OK - US News

A growing body of research shows that people lie constantly, that deception is pervasive in everyday life. One study found that people tell two to three lies every 10 minutes, and even conservative estimates indicate that we lie at least once a day.
Click to expand...
 
Tettsuo said:
Tell the truth. He could have simply told the police the truth that we all saw as we watched the video. Crawford was not threatening anyone. Crawford didn't point the "gun" at anyone.

If he thought he saw Crawford doing these things, he wasn't looking at Crawford.

If what you believe isn't what's happening, doesn't that make you at the very least, crazy?

1 - Show me where in the video (outside of the caller who is clearly not seeing correctly) does anyone feel threatened by Crawford. Show me in the video where Crawford behaved in a threatening manner.
2 - Crawford, and any person not doing anything illegal, shouldn't need to live in a state of fear that his or her actions may be perceived as threatening. It's not the responsibility of law abiding citizens to be ever-vigilant of other people's fears.
3 - No one, not engaging in any illegal activity, should be walking around prepared to react when cops arrive on the scene. This points back to point 2.
4 - No... the cops should not be using ANY force against a person who's not threatening them or others in the public.
Click to expand...

Not only is the family of three obviously threatened in the video, but earlier, someone posted the witness statements, and the boy says that he and his sister and mother felt threatened/scared, and that is why they left the area he was in. So yes, others did feel threatened by Crawford.

You should always be aware of whether your actions can be perceived as threatening. This is one reason why you should keep track of your luggage/bags while in a public area, such as an airport, on the bus, in a mall, or anywhere else in public. Because in this day and age, unattended baggage can be considered "threatening" because it could be a bomb of some sort. It isn't illegal to leave your bags or luggage behind accidentally, but it can still be a threat to the public in general and cost the public time and money for you to do that.
 
JasperL said:
I assume you mean it's not "reality" to expect other Walmart patrons and/or police to not assume a person legally carrying a rifle is an imminent threat warranting the SWAT team response. If that's not reality, then Ohio has no business with an open carry law. If carrying a rifle in Walmart is suspicious, and police assume anyone doing this entirely legal act is a mad man who gets one second to prove he's not before killing him, then it shouldn't be legal to carry a rifle in Walmart. And of course I don't think it should be legal to do.
Click to expand...

I don't care where you are, carrying a rifle openly around WalMart, particularly in a manner like this guy did (swinging it back and forth, swinging it up and down to chest level, swinging it over his shoulder several times, appearing like he was trying to load it, etc.) is suspicious behavior. It is completely legal behavior, just like, technically, looking into the windows of warehouses and stores is legal behavior, yet it doesn't make it any less suspicious. The more suspicious yet legal behavior you have together, the more suspicious the person looks and the less likely it is that their intentions are good or neutral. It doesn't mean that the person can't just be curious or oblivious or distracted, and not mean to do anything at all, but it is still suspicious behavior, warranting checking it out. In this case though, the suspicious behavior could also be considered threatening since it involved a gun/weapon.
 
roguenuke said:
They have to sometimes. What if the civilian had been right? What if it was a real rifle and the guy holding it had been disturbed? What "clues" would the police have to actually show them this in that few seconds of seeing him? How would they know that he wasn't raising that rifle to shoot one of them or someone else?
Click to expand...

No, they don't have to. They take the reports into consideration but when they get to the scene, but their actions should be based on what is actually happening. In this case, even if it had been a real rifle and the man was disturbed, his actions while the police were there did not post any imminent threat. Therefore, there was no need to shoot him. They would know that he wasn't raising his gun to shoot at them because he wasn't raising his gun at all.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Not only is the family of three obviously threatened in the video, but earlier, someone posted the witness statements, and the boy says that he and his sister and mother felt threatened/scared, and that is why they left the area he was in. So yes, others did feel threatened by Crawford.
Click to expand...

That is just not true. His statement said "we stayed away from him". It does not mention threatened or scared.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2014/09/26/Witness_Statements_-_Final_2.pdf
 
reinoe said:
No comment on the video where a veritable strike force arrives for a man walking down the street in an Open carry state. Why so selective on what you comment on? You reflexively defend the White Guy in the photo but ignored the video. This is becoming very transparent.
Click to expand...

I've already made my comments on the video. You have yet to answer any questions that would provide information about the situation. Without that information, I wont' comment on what happened. It is important as to determining what happened.

I ignored the video because I didn't feel like watching something that I knew (and was right) was a setup from the beginning. I also defended the black guy. Or did you miss the part where I said specifically that the black guy pumping gas was the only one that I felt was being a responsible gun owner out of the three?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom