• 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

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

Why would they stay away from him if they didn't feel either "threatened or scared"? Why did the mother react as she did, moving her children immediately out of the area upon seeing the guy with the gun, then gesturing as if trying to get someone's attention in the garden department, then, after entering back into the store itself, walking the completely opposite direction? She was threatened. I definitely recognized that reaction.
 
Why would they stay away from him if they didn't feel either "threatened or scared"? Why did the mother react as she did, moving her children immediately out of the area upon seeing the guy with the gun, then gesturing as if trying to get someone's attention in the garden department, then, after entering back into the store itself, walking the completely opposite direction? She was threatened. I definitely recognized that reaction.

She didn't move immediately out of the area. She lingered there for 10 seconds and when she left, she left her daughter behind. She also did not gesture to anyone.

If she felt threatened by a crazy man with a gun, then why did she walk back into the with her children?

Is that something a parent who feels their children's lives are threatened does?
 
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.

They didn't know it wasn't a real, high powered rifle. They had to react off the information they had, which was that he was a threat. The motion of raising the barrel of the rifle up, even the little bit, was a threatening motion. They could not have known why he did that. It was possible that he would have continued to move it up and shoot either the cops or civilians in the area. They are not mindreaders or psychics. They only know what is going on at that moment. And most training for police officers says that you don't give a person with a weapon time to shoot someone. If they make any moves that can be deemed as "threatening", as in they look like they might shoot, you can shoot them to stop the "threat".
 
They didn't know it wasn't a real, high powered rifle. They had to react off the information they had, which was that he was a threat.

They didn't have any information that he was an imminent threat.

The motion of raising the barrel of the rifle up, even the little bit, was a threatening motion. They could not have known why he did that.

No, it's not and besides, he wasn't lifting the barrel up. He was lowering it.
 
She didn't move immediately out of the area. She lingered there for 10 seconds and when she left, she left her daughter behind. She also did not gesture to anyone.

No. She didn't see him immediately. You can see that as soon as she turned her head, she shuffled both the children out. She didn't leave the daughter behind. She noticed that the daughter wasn't following immediately, and got her attention. Then you can see in the garden section that she is looking for people, making motions to get someone's attention, even looking like she was gesturing for someone to call someone. We don't know what she said, but it was definitely not normal for someone to do as she did. She felt threatened, even if just a little, by the guy carrying the rifle in the store.
 
They didn't have any information that he was an imminent threat.

No, it's not and besides, he wasn't lifting the barrel up. He was lowering it.

Yes, they did. It may have been bad information, but it was still information. Just like that whole "swatting" thing. Those incidents are based off of information about a person who is being viewed as a threat, an imminent threat.

He was lifting it at at least one point after the police arrived. You can keep denying it, but it did happen.
 
She didn't move immediately out of the area. She lingered there for 10 seconds and when she left, she left her daughter behind. She also did not gesture to anyone.

If she felt threatened by a crazy man with a gun, then why did she walk back into the with her children?

Is that something a parent who feels their children's lives are threatened does?

Yeah if that WalMart was anything like all the Walmarts in my city, the lawn and garden deparment has a separate entrance. If I felt threatened in any way, as a mother, I would have walked behind my child and got the hell out of the store. It makes no sense if a parent felt threatened by a man they thought had a gun, to leave a child behind and then not leave the store and even though she walked back in and headed supposedly the other way - if she felt threatened in any way why the hell did she go back through the door and risk anything to her children? I really can't speak for all mothers though some may react different but it just makes no sense to think she felt a threat and then put her children at risk.
 
No. She didn't see him immediately. You can see that as soon as she turned her head, she shuffled both the children out. She didn't leave the daughter behind. She noticed that the daughter wasn't following immediately, and got her attention. Then you can see in the garden section that she is looking for people, making motions to get someone's attention, even looking like she was gesturing for someone to call someone. We don't know what she said, but it was definitely not normal for someone to do as she did. She felt threatened, even if just a little, by the guy carrying the rifle in the store.

The video does not show what you claim to have seen. The mother does look at him for a few seconds but she makes no gestures. Her hands remain on the shopping cart throughout the entire time.

And she doesn't notice that her daughter was left behind. Look at 8:25:54:03 She is leaving the frame of the video camera inside the store and entering the view of the outside camera. The daughter is behind her still looking at something on the shelf and she makes not effort to gesture to her daughter. She doesn't turn around nor do her hands leave the shopping cart until she is outside

When she goes outside, her hands are *still* on the shopping cart. She does lift them for about two seconds to fix her hair!! I don't know anyone who fixes their hair as a way to get someone's attention unless they're flirting with someone.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they did. It may have been bad information, but it was still information. Just like that whole "swatting" thing. Those incidents are based off of information about a person who is being viewed as a threat, an imminent threat.

He was lifting it at at least one point after the police arrived. You can keep denying it, but it did happen.

No, during the time the police are in the video, the gun is pointing down or being lowered
 
The video does not show what you claim to have seen. The mother does look at him for a few seconds but she makes no gestures. Her hands remain on the shopping cart throughout the entire time.

And you can't hear anything she says. It is obvious that she moves her children out of the area as soon as she actually sees him. That means that she felt some degree of threat from him.
 
No, during the time the police are in the video, the gun is pointing down or being lowered

No, it isn't. I gave the exact time earlier where the gun swings forward after the police arrive and engage Crawford. The gun swings forward. That is what almost certainly prompted the first shot(s) fired.
 
Yeah if that WalMart was anything like all the Walmarts in my city, the lawn and garden deparment has a separate entrance. If I felt threatened in any way, as a mother, I would have walked behind my child and got the hell out of the store. It makes no sense if a parent felt threatened by a man they thought had a gun, to leave a child behind and then not leave the store and even though she walked back in and headed supposedly the other way - if she felt threatened in any way why the hell did she go back through the door and risk anything to her children? I really can't speak for all mothers though some may react different but it just makes no sense to think she felt a threat and then put her children at risk.

Not all WalMarts do have another entrance and not all mothers are the same. She may have had stuff she had to get elsewhere in the store. She might have been waiting on a prescription. She have been told in the garden department that the police had been informed or that they knew about the guy. There are different levels of threat. Not everything is black and white.
 
Not all WalMarts do have another entrance and not all mothers are the same. She may have had stuff she had to get elsewhere in the store. She might have been waiting on a prescription. She have been told in the garden department that the police had been informed or that they knew about the guy. There are different levels of threat. Not everything is black and white.

You're right, I can't speak for all mothers I only know my own instinct to protect my child above anyone else. If there was no exit and I truly felt a little bit of a threat and thought it was a gun, I would find somewhere to hide or conceal and protect her, **** anything else including a prescription . I can't imagine the kind of parent thinking they need to go back with their children in the line of a threat because their prescription may be ready. I'm glad I'm not like that, how selfish.
 
And you can't hear anything she says. It is obvious that she moves her children out of the area as soon as she actually sees him. That means that she felt some degree of threat from him.

It is obvious that she leaves her daughter behind her and makes no gesture to her daughter or any gesture to get anyone's attention, as you claimed.
 
Not all WalMarts do have another entrance and not all mothers are the same.

This WalMart does have another entrance because the police enter it without going through the door seen in the video.

She may have had stuff she had to get elsewhere in the store. She might have been waiting on a prescription. She have been told in the garden department that the police had been informed or that they knew about the guy. There are different levels of threat. Not everything is black and white.
She had to get something so she goes back in, with her children!!, when there's a crazy man with a gun she's afraid of inside?
 
You're right, I can't speak for all mothers I only know my own instinct to protect my child above anyone else. If there was no exit and I truly felt a little bit of a threat and thought it was a gun, I would find somewhere to hide or conceal and protect her, **** anything else including a prescription . I can't imagine the kind of parent thinking they need to go back with their children in the line of a threat because their prescription may be ready. I'm glad I'm not like that, how selfish.

I have an instinct to protect my children too, but I can't say that I wouldn't have done what this mother did in the same situation. It would have been based off of my circumstances and how threatened I felt. It is actually amazing what we can convince ourselves of. She could have easily been having an internal monologue with herself, telling her that she was overreacting. Maybe he really wasn't an actual threat, but she should be cautious. As I said, it isn't black and white, he is a lethal threat to me and mine or no threat at all. It is absolutely not that simple.
 
It is obvious that she leaves her daughter behind her and makes no gesture to her daughter or any gesture to get anyone's attention, as you claimed.

The daughter was left behind almost the same amount of time it took between the police getting there and shots fired, about 2-3 seconds. So the daughter was hustled out quickly but the police gave the guy plently of time. :confused:
 
This WalMart does have another entrance because the police enter it without going through the door seen in the video.

She had to get something so she goes back in, with her children!!, when there's a crazy man with a gun she's afraid of inside?

And you both are reducing the situation to black and white only. It is absolutely not that simple, not for most people. You can easily feel threatened by someone without it being a "he's going to kill me or my children next time he sees us" type threat. It can be more of "maybe I should avoid that person just in case he is crazy and decides to open fire".
 
The daughter was left behind almost the same amount of time it took between the police getting there and shots fired, about 2-3 seconds. So the daughter was hustled out quickly but the police gave the guy plently of time. :confused:

The mother didn't direct the police, nor did the police direct the daughter to move. The police are not likely going to place the same level of threat or urgency to the situation as the mother, as any civilian. Likely the police are going to place a higher level of urgency, once they realize that they do have a guy in WalMart with a rifle, and that he could potentially be dangerous, given the information they have. The mother would not have any information saying that he might have loaded the gun, the police did. The mother wouldn't have any information (that we know of) that he was (whether or true or not) pointing it at people, the police did. So she could have placed him at a lower level of threat than the police, while still registering him as a threat.
 
I have an instinct to protect my children too, but I can't say that I wouldn't have done what this mother did in the same situation. It would have been based off of my circumstances and how threatened I felt. It is actually amazing what we can convince ourselves of. She could have easily been having an internal monologue with herself, telling her that she was overreacting. Maybe he really wasn't an actual threat, but she should be cautious. As I said, it isn't black and white, he is a lethal threat to me and mine or no threat at all. It is absolutely not that simple.

If his actions did not rise to the level that she felt he was a lethal threat, then he shouldn't have been shot.

Or are you arguing that anyone who does something that makes someone the least bit concerned deserves to be shot?
 
If his actions did not rise to the level that she felt he was a lethal threat, then he shouldn't have been shot.

Or are you arguing that anyone who does something that makes someone the least bit concerned deserves to be shot?

Why? Because she is a good judge of who is actually a lethal threat or not just because she was in the area or is a mother? That is ridiculous.
 
I have no idea what point you're trying to make there

That judgments about who is a lethal threat or not are subjective, and can be influenced by training, experience, and emotions. Some may feel that someone was a more lethal threat than the police would in a given situation, while others may feel that someone was a much less lethal threat or only a slightly less lethal threat than the police do in a given situation.
 
That judgments about who is a lethal threat or not are subjective, and can be influenced by training, experience, and emotions. Some may feel that someone was a more lethal threat than the police would in a given situation, while others may feel that someone was a much less lethal threat or only a slightly less lethal threat than the police do in a given situation.

But in *this* situation, the argument was this woman did *not* feel he was a lethal threat. At least, that was the argument you were making in that post.

The facts show that he did not present an imminent threat at the time the police shot him. The gun was pointed down and being lowered

I have no problem with the police shooting someone who poses an imminent threat. I even said so early in the thread (or maybe it was the other thread about this shooting) that the police were right to shoot him the second time when he rushed the police officer (after he fell down and got back up) because at *that* moment, he was causing an imminent threat
 
But in *this* situation, the argument was this woman did *not* feel he was a lethal threat. At least, that was the argument you were making in that post.

The facts show that he did not present an imminent threat at the time the police shot him. The gun was pointed down and being lowered

I have no problem with the police shooting someone who poses an imminent threat. I even said so early in the thread (or maybe it was the other thread about this shooting) that the police were right to shoot him the second time when he rushed the police officer (after he fell down and got back up) because at *that* moment, he was causing an imminent threat

Just because she did not see him as an immediate lethal threat to her or her children, does not mean that others, especially police officers, would not see him as a potentially lethal threat (which is what prompted their response to enter the store and confront him), nor that his actions during that confrontation, even if not intentional, may lead others, aka the police, to view him as an imminent lethal threat at that moment.
 
Back
Top Bottom