- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,564
- Reaction score
- 29,887
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
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.
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.