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

roguenuke · Sep 30, 2014

americanwoman said:
That witness is now admitting he lied.

Walmart Shooting: Lone 911 Caller Admits Lie, Crawford Never Pointed 'Gun'

Not quite admitting "he lied", at least at the time. Especially since what he says didn't happen isn't actually what he said happened in the call, "at no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody.". He actually never said that the guy "shouldered the rifle and pointed it at someone" in his call.

But this does go back to psychology. He may have believed at the time that he saw the guy point the rifle at someone and even load it (which is possible if the guy didn't know what kind of gun it was since certain movements can appear to be loading it when it comes to perspective). When is something a lie? Is a statement a lie when it is something a person knows is wrong or when what they believe is proven wrong?

Now, maybe this guy did truly lie on purpose, and if proven, he should be held accountable. However, this does not prove any lie on his part, only a change in perspective, especially since he had since been shown the video and people adjust their perspectives to new facts and information, even subconsciously.

sangha · Sep 30, 2014

Lursa said:
It was concerning enough for someone to call 911. Is he wrong too?

If by "he", you're referring to the caller, he was without a doubt wrong. The caller made claims that are clearly false.

I mean, he was there, he described actions, like fumbling and trying to load a gun and pointing it at people. He was there, as were the police. Their perceptions are at least worth considering, even if you choose to judge what you see and hear on a video.

Crawford did not fumble with the gun, did not try to load it and did not point it anyone in the video.

And I did not say that eyewitnesses should not be considered. However, what they say should not be considered the truth simply because they were there and said it happened. As the video shows, people's perceptions are not always accurate.

roguenuke said:
Actually, this is not true at all. People in stressful situations, without any drugs or impairments, have been shown to see things that didn't happen. Many times they see what they expect to see instead of what actually happens, which is why eye witness accounts are becoming less reliable as evidence.

You see? Even you know this

Mr. Invisible · Sep 30, 2014

americanwoman said:
Do you think in this case it was? To me it looked like he blatantly misrepresented the facts when he said said the guy was reloading and pointing guns at children when the surveillance shows otherwise.

Hell, he even changed his story: "One month later, Ritchie puts it differently. 'At no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody,' the 24-year-old said, in an interview with the Guardian. He maintained that Crawford was 'waving it around', which attorneys for Crawford’s family deny." (Doubts cast on witness's account of black man killed by police in Walmart | World news | theguardian.com)

In addition to this, due to Ritchie's lying, not only did Crawford die, but also a woman in the Walmart died as well.

“She was apparently running from a dangerous situation inside the Walmart store when she collapsed. She was taken to Soin Medical Center where she died at 9:14 p.m.” The dangerous situation, of course, being the police coming in and shooting Crawford. (Death of woman at Walmart shooting called devastating | www.daytondailynews.com)

countryboy · Sep 30, 2014

sangha said:
If by "he", you're referring to the caller, he was without a doubt wrong. The caller made claims that are clearly false.

Crawford did not fumble with the gun, did not try to load it and did not point it anyone in the video.

And I did not say that eyewitnesses should not be considered. However, what they say should not be considered the truth simply because they were there and said it happened. As the video shows, people's perceptions are not always accurate.

You can keep repeating your obviously agenda driven opinion til the cows come home, doesn't change a thing to those of us with common sense.

roguenuke · Sep 30, 2014

sangha said:
If by "he", you're referring to the caller, he was without a doubt wrong. The caller made claims that are clearly false.

Crawford did not fumble with the gun, did not try to load it and did not point it anyone in the video.

And I did not say that eyewitnesses should not be considered. However, what they say should not be considered the truth simply because they were there and said it happened. As the video shows, people's perceptions are not always accurate.

You see? Even you know this

Your problem is that you place most of the blame on the police who are going off of evidence that they got but is confirmed at least partially by the actual situation, since the guy was where the caller said he would be and did have a gun in his possession. They had no way to know that the guy wasn't an immediate threat based on the information they have, even knowing that people can be wrong. Not all people are wrong in what they are seeing. It is a Catch-22.

sangha · Sep 30, 2014

roguenuke said:
Your problem is that you place most of the blame on the police who are going off of evidence that they got but is confirmed at least partially by the actual situation, since the guy was where the caller said he would be and did have a gun in his possession. They had no way to know that the guy wasn't an immediate threat based on the information they have, even knowing that people can be wrong. Not all people are wrong in what they are seeing. It is a Catch-22.

No, your problem is that, like the cop who first shot him, you're ignoring the evidence that he posed no threat and was complying with their order to drop the gun. IOW, they *did* have info that the guy was not an immediate threat because they were there and could see that the gun was pointing at the floor and he was putting the gun down when ordered to do so.

roguenuke · Sep 30, 2014

sangha said:
No, your problem is that, like the cop who first shot him, you're ignoring the evidence that he posed no threat and was complying with their order to drop the gun. IOW, they *did* have info that the guy was not an immediate threat because they were there and could see that the gun was pointing at the floor and he was putting the gun down when ordered to do so.

Except we have no idea how long it actually took him to comply with that order and the police were dealing with a situation where they didn't know if the guy was planning on going on a shooting rampage, as the information they had suggested. They did not have any information that would say he wasn't an immediate threat, despite what you want to believe. Even if he was putting his weapon down, which we really can't tell from the video since it didn't look like that happened til after the first shot was heard, the police didn't know a lot of information about the guy. He had a gun, swinging it around or at least back and forth in public. That is threatening, especially if others don't know what is going on or that the gun is really just a BB gun. It should not have been out to begin with. Open carry state or not, we simply have had too many instances where people have entered crowded places and opened fire, some after having scoped out the place first. That puts people on edge, especially police officers who have just went through training for that type of situation.

sangha · Sep 30, 2014

roguenuke said:
Except we have no idea how long it actually took him to comply with that order

Wrong. We know exactly how long Crawford was given to comply with the order. It is right there on the video.

He's told to drop the gun, and less than a second later he is shot.

and the police were dealing with a situation where they didn't know if the guy was planning on going on a shooting rampage, as the information they had suggested. They did not have any information that would say he wasn't an immediate threat, despite what you want to believe.

The gun was pointed at the floor and he was putting it down. It's right there on video.

Even if he was putting his weapon down, which we really can't tell from the video since it didn't look like that happened til after the first shot was heard, the police didn't know a lot of information about the guy.

They had their eyes so they could see that he was putting the weapon down and wasn't pointing it at anyone

He had a gun, swinging it around or at least back and forth in public. That is threatening, especially if others don't know what is going on or that the gun is really just a BB gun.

No, that is not threatening. Irresponsible, but not threatening.

It should not have been out to begin with.

You can blame WalMart for that. Unfortunately, WalMart wasn't the one that was shot and killed

Open carry state or not, we simply have had too many instances where people have entered crowded places and opened fire, some after having scoped out the place first. That puts people on edge, especially police officers who have just went through training for that type of situation.

Hmm, police officers on edge. What could possibly go wrong with that?

roguenuke · Sep 30, 2014

sangha said:
Wrong. We know exactly how long Crawford was given to comply with the order. It is right there on the video.

He's told to drop the gun, and less than a second later he is shot.

The gun was pointed at the floor and he was putting it down. It's right there on video.

They had their eyes so they could see that he was putting the weapon down and wasn't pointing it at anyone

No, that is not threatening. Irresponsible, but not threatening.

You can blame WalMart for that. Unfortunately, WalMart wasn't the one that was shot and killed

Hmm, police officers on edge. What could possibly go wrong with that?

No, we don't. Because we only have audio from the specific area that the caller of 911 was in. We do not know what was said by cops on the other side, more than 20 feet away. We have no idea what was all said. It is merely speculation to believe that you can actually hear everything that is going on in such a situation based on what is overheard in the background of a phone call. We know that there were police officers coming from both sides of the aisles. That means that at least one set of officers we do not know what interaction or communication they had with the guy with the gun. We also don't know what happened since to me it doesnt' look like he was putting the gun down at all. Pointed at the floor does not mean that the cops didn't see something.

It would be nice to have what the Grand Jury had, that information. But we don't. We only have a single surveillance video with audio dubbed in from a phone call. There definitely seems to be more than this, something the media doesn't have.

Tettsuo · Sep 30, 2014

roguenuke said:
No, we don't. Because we only have audio from the specific area that the caller of 911 was in. We do not know what was said by cops on the other side, more than 20 feet away. We have no idea what was all said. It is merely speculation to believe that you can actually hear everything that is going on in such a situation based on what is overheard in the background of a phone call. We know that there were police officers coming from both sides of the aisles. That means that at least one set of officers we do not know what interaction or communication they had with the guy with the gun. We also don't know what happened since to me it doesnt' look like he was putting the gun down at all. Pointed at the floor does not mean that the cops didn't see something.

It would be nice to have what the Grand Jury had, that information. But we don't. We only have a single surveillance video with audio dubbed in from a phone call. There definitely seems to be more than this, something the media doesn't have.

So not dropping your gun, a gun that's not pointed at any one, as soon as the police tell you to do so is enough to get you killed by the cops? Is this your stance?

sangha · Sep 30, 2014

roguenuke said:
No, we don't. Because we only have audio from the specific area that the caller of 911 was in. We do not know what was said by cops on the other side, more than 20 feet away. We have no idea what was all said. It is merely speculation to believe that you can actually hear everything that is going on in such a situation based on what is overheard in the background of a phone call. We know that there were police officers coming from both sides of the aisles. That means that at least one set of officers we do not know what interaction or communication they had with the guy with the gun. We also don't know what happened since to me it doesnt' look like he was putting the gun down at all. Pointed at the floor does not mean that the cops didn't see something.

It would be nice to have what the Grand Jury had, that information. But we don't. We only have a single surveillance video with audio dubbed in from a phone call. There definitely seems to be more than this, something the media doesn't have.

No, we know exactly when the cops started communication started. You can hear it and see when Crawford starts reacting. The possibility that the police were quietly communicating with him is absurd. It goes against standard police procedure and if that's what they were doing then that is just more evidence that this situation was handled incompetently by the police

And "pointed at the floor" does mean that it wasn't a threat to anyone at that moment.

Basically, your argument is "there must have been something else that justifies the shooting" which pretty much demonstrates the absence of any evidence in the recording to justify the shooting.

sangha · Sep 30, 2014

Tettsuo said:
So not dropping your gun, a gun that's not pointed at any one, as soon as the police tell you to do so is enough to get you killed by the cops? Is this your stance?

He was given less than one second. If he dropped the gun that fast, they would be arguing that his quick movement indicated a threat and justified shooting him

American · Sep 30, 2014

CRUE CAB said:
Clearly the only solution is to disarm and disband all police officers and departments.

No police departments need to start wearing shiney shoes again, and dump the combat gear. It's going to their heads. There is no way that officer gave the guy time to put his weapon down unless they deleted video. The guy is standing there and next he's down. That was like one second. Who can react that fast. First you have to realize that an officer is even talking to you. If you're minding your own business, and a cop start shouting you don't even know it's you they're shouting at. It's not like the guy baracaded himself in the store, and then cops came pouring in. He's standing in the pet aisle looking at a shelf of pet food. If you heard yelling would you immediately assuming it's you being yelled at? You'd look up to see what's going on. Based that video you'd have been shot already before realizing they are talking to you.

Tettsuo · Sep 30, 2014

sangha said:
He was given less than one second. If he dropped the gun that fast, they would be arguing that his quick movement indicated a threat and justified shooting him

Even if he was given 10 seconds, that's not reason enough to shoot, imo. You shoot when there's clear and present danger. At no point was the gentleman in the video acting in a threatening manner. At no point was he threatening the other shoppers. It was an air rifle. I'm personally amazed people are still in support of the cops who killed this man.

roguenuke · Sep 30, 2014

Tettsuo said:
So not dropping your gun, a gun that's not pointed at any one, as soon as the police tell you to do so is enough to get you killed by the cops? Is this your stance?

There should be sufficient time to put down the weapon, but what is sufficient is subjective. Plus, we don't actually know how much time he had. As I've said, we don't really know when the first cop to have any contact with him ordered him to put down the gun. We know he had a few seconds at least. How much time though is sufficient before the police should take someone down?

Plus, he raises the gun up right after the first officer we do here says to drop it. Right at 8:26:56 he looks to be raising the gun up, not putting it on the ground, right after the police officer told him to drop it. It is more than possible that he didn't understand what was going on or why, but it is what happened in the video. Just as there were several instances where he raises the gun up to chest or waist level, even slings it on his shoulder several times. That certainly could be threatening to other shoppers.

Also, around 8:21/8:22, he does appear to be trying to load the gun, just as the caller claimed. I, as someone who has no clue how BB guns work nor can I tell the difference between a BB gun and a real rifle, especially from at least an aisle in WalMart away, would think he was trying to load the gun.

roguenuke · Sep 30, 2014

Tettsuo said:
Even if he was given 10 seconds, that's not reason enough to shoot, imo. You shoot when there's clear and present danger. At no point was the gentleman in the video acting in a threatening manner. At no point was he threatening the other shoppers. It was an air rifle. I'm personally amazed people are still in support of the cops who killed this man.

A fact that was not immediately obvious in that situation. It looked like a real rifle to me. How was the guy on the phone supposed to know it was just a BB gun without getting closer? Why should he get closer just to verify? And I doubt the police could tell either, especially given the situation and information they had.

americanwoman · Sep 30, 2014

American said:
No police departments need to start wearing shiney shoes again, and dump the combat gear. It's going to their heads. There is no way that officer gave the guy time to put his weapon down unless they deleted video. The guy is standing there and next he's down. That was like one second. Who can react that fast. First you have to realize that an officer is even talking to you. If you're minding your own business, and a cop start shouting you don't even know it's you they're shouting at. It's not like the guy baracaded himself in the store, and then cops came pouring in. He's standing in the pet aisle looking at a shelf of pet food. If you heard yelling would you immediately assuming it's you being yelled at? You'd look up to see what's going on. Based that video you'd have been shot already before realizing they are talking to you.

Yes and the fact that he was carrying store merchandise would have taken him a second or two to comprehend they thought he had a gun. I was pulled over with an air rifle in the backseat and it took a couple seconds of shock after the cop pulled his gun on us to remember it was back there and that he might mistake it for a gun. Luckily the cop was very cool about it all, although he called for back up to inspect the it and kept his gun on us at all times, I can't imagine just being rushed up on and taken by even more surprise.

American · Sep 30, 2014

roguenuke said:
Not quite admitting "he lied", at least at the time. Especially since what he says didn't happen isn't actually what he said happened in the call, "at no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody.". He actually never said that the guy "shouldered the rifle and pointed it at someone" in his call.

But this does go back to psychology. He may have believed at the time that he saw the guy point the rifle at someone and even load it (which is possible if the guy didn't know what kind of gun it was since certain movements can appear to be loading it when it comes to perspective). When is something a lie? Is a statement a lie when it is something a person knows is wrong or when what they believe is proven wrong?

Now, maybe this guy did truly lie on purpose, and if proven, he should be held accountable. However, this does not prove any lie on his part, only a change in perspective, especially since he had since been shown the video and people adjust their perspectives to new facts and information, even subconsciously.

Probably a gun hater trying to get a gun owner killed. I wouldn't be surprised if more of this doesn't happen; all you need are gun happy police officers who don't think their careers are complete unless they shoot someone.

sangha · Sep 30, 2014

roguenuke said:
There should be sufficient time to put down the weapon, but what is sufficient is subjective.

I don't think any reasonable person would say that less than a second is sufficient.

Plus, we don't actually know how much time he had. As I've said, we don't really know when the first cop to have any contact with him ordered him to put down the gun. We know he had a few seconds at least. How much time though is sufficient before the police should take someone down?

No, he was given less than a second.

And the police should not shoot unless the person presents a threat which Crawford did not do. It doesn't matter how long it takes for him to put down the gun.

Plus, he raises the gun up right after the first officer we do here says to drop it. Right at 8:26:56 he looks to be raising the gun up, not putting it on the ground, right after the police officer told him to drop it.

The gun is pointed at the ground the entire time, from the moment they tell him to "get down" to the time they shoot him. All one second of it.

It is more than possible that he didn't understand what was going on or why, but it is what happened in the video. Just as there were several instances where he raises the gun up to chest or waist level, even slings it on his shoulder several times. That certainly could be threatening to other shoppers.

Crawford was not pointing the gun at anyone when he was shot.

Also, around 8:21/8:22, he does appear to be trying to load the gun, just as the caller claimed. I, as someone who has no clue how BB guns work nor can I tell the difference between a BB gun and a real rifle, especially from at least an aisle in WalMart away, would think he was trying to load the gun.

Irrelevant. Police treat all guns as if they are loaded. The issue here isn't whether the gun was loaded. The issue is whether the shooting was justified and the only time a police shooting is justified is when the person they shoot is posing a threat to themselves or others. Crawford was not posing an threat when he was shot.

Tettsuo · Sep 30, 2014

roguenuke said:
A fact that was not immediately obvious in that situation. It looked like a real rifle to me. How was the guy on the phone supposed to know it was just a BB gun without getting closer? Why should he get closer just to verify? And I doubt the police could tell either, especially given the situation and information they had.

You're missing the point. The point is he never at any point during that video, posed a threat to anyone. Even if the item he was hold was an AR-15, there's no reason to immediately shoot because he wasn't threatening anyone.

So I ask again:
So not dropping your gun, a gun that's not pointed at any one, as soon as the police tell you to do so is enough to get you killed by the cops? Is this your stance?

Lursa · Sep 30, 2014

sangha said:
If by "he", you're referring to the caller, he was without a doubt wrong. The caller made claims that are clearly false.

Crawford did not fumble with the gun, did not try to load it and did not point it anyone in the video.

And I did not say that eyewitnesses should not be considered. However, what they say should not be considered the truth simply because they were there and said it happened. As the video shows, people's perceptions are not always accurate.

It matters not if the caller was correct. This is what he *believed* he was seeing. There's a distinction there...just like *I* saw a man fumbling with a gun* and you dont. So....factually,

Lursa said:
It was concerning enough for someone to call 911. Is he wrong too?

There is a distinction between 'mistake' and 'wrong.' IMO, he was not wrong about many things, including his perceptions of the man's behavior.

These are the circumstances that many 911 callers are under. Dispatchers and police know this. And were you privy to exactly what info the dispatcher gave the police? Exactly what presumptions they went in with? They dont hear the 911 call.

No one disputes the police should assess the situation themselves, but it's petty to criticize the caller who acted IMO correctly and interpreted events *as he saw them.* The caller was alarmed by the guy's behavior....it was not remotely normal from what I saw for behavior in a retail store.

sangha · Sep 30, 2014

Lursa said:
It matters not if the caller was correct. This is what he *believed* he was seeing. There's a distinction there...just like *I* saw a man fumbling with a gun* and you dont. So....factually,

I don't care what he believed. My focus is on the police and the police are not supposed to believe whatever they are told.

There is a distinction between 'mistake' and 'wrong.' IMO, he was not wrong about many things, including his perceptions of the man's behavior.

He was clearly wrong about the man's behavior.

These are the circumstances that many 911 callers are under. Dispatchers and police know this. And were you privy to exactly what info the dispatcher gave the police? Exactly what presumptions they went in with? They dont hear the 911 call.

Again, the police are not supposed to shoot someone because of their presumptions. They are supposed to shoot only if a person presents an imminent threat. Crawford posed no such threat

No one disputes the police should assess the situation themselves, but it's petty to criticize the caller who acted IMO correctly and interpreted events *as he saw them.*

I suggest you continue reading through the thread. Pay close attention to the recent reports about this caller. He has a penchant for dishonesty

Lursa · Sep 30, 2014

sangha said:
I don't care what he believed. My focus is on the police and the police are not supposed to believe whatever they are told.

He was clearly wrong about the man's behavior.

Again, the police are not supposed to shoot someone because of their presumptions. They are supposed to shoot only if a person presents an imminent threat. Crawford posed no such threat

I suggest you continue reading through the thread. Pay close attention to the recent reports about this caller. He has a penchant for dishonesty

Really? I'm not aware that the dead guy's mental state, psychiatric records, or autopsy has been released.

I dont care what the reports about the caller are....you seem to like ignoring the fact that the video shows a man acting in a disturbing manner. I see it, other people see it. You dont see it? Good for you. That does not make you right.

The mother that took her kids and immediately left the area....she's got a reputation for falsely accusing people of threatening behavior too?

And while I didnt dispute the police's actions, I didnt see you tell me how much they knew about the guy with the gun....how much info from the caller was relayed to them. Do you know?

CRUE CAB · Sep 30, 2014

American said:
No police departments need to start wearing shiney shoes again, and dump the combat gear. It's going to their heads. There is no way that officer gave the guy time to put his weapon down unless they deleted video. The guy is standing there and next he's down. That was like one second. Who can react that fast. First you have to realize that an officer is even talking to you. If you're minding your own business, and a cop start shouting you don't even know it's you they're shouting at. It's not like the guy baracaded himself in the store, and then cops came pouring in. He's standing in the pet aisle looking at a shelf of pet food. If you heard yelling would you immediately assuming it's you being yelled at? You'd look up to see what's going on. Based that video you'd have been shot already before realizing they are talking to you.

I quit reading at "give him time" to put down what looks every bit like a real gun. I got money that says the first words were, "drop the gun". He didn't. And without audio you have no clue what was said.
Oh, and seems the 911 caller is back tracking as well. He should be charged.

sangha · Sep 30, 2014

Lursa said:
Really? I'm not aware that the dead guy's mental state, psychiatric records, or autopsy has been released.

Those all are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if he was posing an imminent threat

He wasn't

I dont care what the reports about the caller are....you seem to like ignoring the fact that the video shows a man acting in a disturbing manner. I see it, other people see it. You dont see it? Good for you. That does not make you right.

You just got done arguing that the callers reports were a valid reason for the police thinking the man posed a threat. Now you're saying you don't care what the caller said.

And it doesn't matter if anyone was "disturbed" The only thing that matters is if he was posing an imminent threat

He wasn't

The mother that took her kids and immediately left the area....she's got a reputation for falsely accusing people of threatening behavior too?

She didn't accuse him of threatening anyone, and she didn't immediately leave the area. She was there for ten seconds. After she left Crawfords sight, she left the store and then went back in. Pretty odd behavior for a woman who thought a man with a gun had just threatened her. Maybe the police should have shot her too

Oh wait! They didn't have to shoot her. She died of a heart attack that was caused not by the fright of being threatened by a strange man pointing a rifle at her (which never happened) but because she was scared by the police shooting a man she was not afraid of.

And while I didnt dispute the police's actions, I didnt see you tell me how much they knew about the guy with the gun....how much info from the caller was relayed to them. Do you know?

So now you're back to arguing that what the caller said does matter!

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

roguenuke

sangha

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country

countryboy

roguenuke

sangha

roguenuke

sangha

roguenuke

Tettsuo

Compassion is Strength

sangha

sangha

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Tettsuo

Compassion is Strength

roguenuke

roguenuke

americanwoman

dangerously addictive

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

sangha

Tettsuo

Compassion is Strength

Lursa

Tenacious

sangha

Lursa

Tenacious

CRUE CAB

sangha