• 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

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.

None of Crawfords actions that were viewed by the police presented an imminent threat. Police officers are supposed to be able to accurately judge threats. A police officer who can not do so should be removed from the force. This officer did a poor job of assessing the situation.
 
None of Crawfords actions that were viewed by the police presented an imminent threat. Police officers are supposed to be able to accurately judge threats. A police officer who can not do so should be removed from the force. This officer did a poor job of assessing the situation.

In your opinion. You don't know what the cops saw that they viewed as a threat. Perhaps it is you that did not see the threat they saw. Obviously people on that grand jury felt there was some sort of threat there for the police to judge in the situation.
 
Granted that walking around in a store with a realistic looking air rifle is a terrible idea, I really think the police went way overboard here.

There seems to be a lot of police going overboard lately. They seem to just assume we're all criminals and act accordingly. Thinking here of the guy in Minnesota (I think) who was sitting in a public area while waiting for his kids and ended up in jail; and the firefighter in Oakland whose kids were ordered to put their hands on their heads and they were held at gunpoint until the father came out of the firehouse where he was shutting the door.

Police work, it turns out, is NOT among the most dangerous occupations. Whatever happened to talking a situation down instead of shooting people? Didn't a cop's best weapon used to be their brain and their ability to talk to people?
 
There seems to be a lot of police going overboard lately. They seem to just assume we're all criminals and act accordingly. Thinking here of the guy in Minnesota (I think) who was sitting in a public area while waiting for his kids and ended up in jail; and the firefighter in Oakland whose kids were ordered to put their hands on their heads and they were held at gunpoint until the father came out of the firehouse where he was shutting the door.

Police work, it turns out, is NOT among the most dangerous occupations. Whatever happened to talking a situation down instead of shooting people? Didn't a cop's best weapon used to be their brain and their ability to talk to people?

He ended up in jail because he was uncooperative in the police investigating the situation. He was being an asshole and breaking the law by not cooperating with the police. In all likelihood, he would have been free to leave long before even the confrontation he instigated took had he simply cooperated with the police officer.
 
None of Crawfords actions that were viewed by the police presented an imminent threat.

"Crawford did not comply with their commands to drop his weapon."

There is the threat.

Police officers are supposed to be able to accurately judge threats.

They gave warning to Crawford, he failed to comply with orders that would have defused the situation without being shot...

A police officer who can not do so should be removed from the force.

None existed here.

This officer did a poor job of assessing the situation.

You are not in LE, nor are you capable of assessing the situation with the limited evidence we know here. Your opinion is noted, I disagree with it.
 
In your opinion. You don't know what the cops saw that they viewed as a threat. Perhaps it is you that did not see the threat they saw. Obviously people on that grand jury felt there was some sort of threat there for the police to judge in the situation.

Not opinion; fact

The rifle was pointed at the floor. No threat.

And the cop says they saw him turn. The video shows he didn't turn. Any officer that hallucinates should not be on the force
 
"Crawford did not comply with their commands to drop his weapon."

There is the threat.

That is not a threat

They gave warning to Crawford, he failed to comply with orders that would have defused the situation without being shot...

They didn't give him time to comply
 
He ended up in jail because he was uncooperative in the police investigating the situation. He was being an asshole and breaking the law by not cooperating with the police. In all likelihood, he would have been free to leave long before even the confrontation he instigated took had he simply cooperated with the police officer.

I'm pretty uncooperative with people who want to ignore my rights under the law. Why are police exempt from that? A pleasant attitude from them would go a long way to defusing situations.
 
I'm pretty uncooperative with people who want to ignore my rights under the law. Why are police exempt from that? A pleasant attitude from them would go a long way to defusing situations.

Because not everyone realizes what their rights truly are and that the police have to be more concerned about what sort of threat someone poses rather than your rights in certain situations, such as the one involving Crawford. It is better for you to be able to sue the government because you had to endure some inconvenience than for you to be dead, is it not?
 
the police have to be more concerned about what sort of threat someone poses rather than your rights in certain situations

Nonsense. The police, and the entire govt, have to always concern themselves with people's rights or else they have no interest in preventing people from being killed.

such as the one involving Crawford. It is better for you to be able to sue the government because you had to endure some inconvenience than for you to be dead, is it not?

Yeah, we had to ignore Crawford's right so we could protect no one's rights.
 
Nonsense. The police, and the entire govt, have to always concern themselves with people's rights or else they have no interest in preventing people from being killed.

Yeah, we had to ignore Crawford's right so we could protect no one's rights.

Wrong. This was a case where the safety of the public trumped a person's rights in the immediate timeframe. Had the guy put the gun down instead of just standing there, and appearing to swing it up (even if only a little), he would not have been shot. The police had no way of knowing that he wasn't going to bring the gun up further.
 
Wrong. This was a case where the safety of the public trumped a person's rights in the immediate timeframe.

The safety of the public was in no imminent danger

Had the guy put the gun down instead of just standing there, and appearing to swing it up (even if only a little), he would not have been shot. The police had no way of knowing that he wasn't going to bring the gun up further.

The gun did not appear to be swinging up. It appeared to be swinging down because it was swinging down.
 
The safety of the public was in no imminent danger

The gun did not appear to be swinging up. It appeared to be swinging down because it was swinging down.

The police did not know if it was or wasn't, particularly with the information they did have, which lead them to believe that the safety of the public was at risk.

And yes, the gun does appear to swing up right after the police arrive and first engage Crawford. You can continue to deny this, but I saw it happen in that video.
 
The police did not know if it was or wasn't, particularly with the information they did have, which lead them to believe that the safety of the public was at risk.

The info they had was right in front of them - a man who posed no imminent threat when they shot him

And yes, the gun does appear to swing up right after the police arrive and first engage Crawford. You can continue to deny this, but I saw it happen in that video.

I have outlined what happens in the video in that time frame, complete with times. The gun was moving down when he was shot.
 
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?
Yeah I did miss that.

The guy in dreadlocks was being just as responsible as anyone else. That is absolutely not a setup. That's him walking down the street minding his own business. And if you have seen video's in the past about these types of situations when the individual is White it never EVER generates a mini-S.W.A.T. team coming out. NOT EVER. It's usually one car responding. Sometimes two cars.
 
Yeah I did miss that.

The guy in dreadlocks was being just as responsible as anyone else. That is absolutely not a setup. That's him walking down the street minding his own business. And if you have seen video's in the past about these types of situations when the individual is White it never EVER generates a mini-S.W.A.T. team coming out. NOT EVER. It's usually one car responding. Sometimes two cars.

That is simply untrue...I not only watched the videos posted in here, but then went on yesterday to related videos, most involved white guys in different cities out for '2nd amendment walks'... Most that I saw have multiple police cars, and some pretty disturbing responses from police IMHO. Trying to make this a racial incident is despicable
 
This is becoming Kafkaesque. Are you actually trying to justify lying that results in another person's death?

You don't know that he "lied" about someone's death (in fact, he didn't). You are trying to say that him claiming "I am an ex-Marine", a technicality that really wasn't true just due to the fact that he didn't make it through basic due to errors or wrong information on his paperwork (we have no real way of knowing the situation there) proves or is some sort of evidence that he absolutely lied about what he saw when it came to this incident and what he reported over the phone. It doesn't prove anything of the sort. If he had a history of calling 911 on other people, of racial discrimination, of being an anti-gun person, of exaggerating claims about others, or similar things that are legitimately connected to this incident, related to some aspect of this incident, then you would have some evidence that the caller is less than trustworthy and up the likelihood that he lied rather than simply reported bad information to the police.
 
Yeah I did miss that.

The guy in dreadlocks was being just as responsible as anyone else. That is absolutely not a setup. That's him walking down the street minding his own business. And if you have seen video's in the past about these types of situations when the individual is White it never EVER generates a mini-S.W.A.T. team coming out. NOT EVER. It's usually one car responding. Sometimes two cars.

Who walks around with someone else filming them, not talking with each other, with a rifle slung across their shoulder, unless they are trying to start something, trying to "catch" someone "violating" their rights? That isn't normal behavior. In all likelihood, it was a setup. He isn't the only one doing such things either, but it is still a setup, to see what reaction a person will get for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in a way that is assholish at best.
 
Witness says he was told multiple times to drop the weapon. Its just no on the news. The 911 caller says he was told. So, what else do you want?

So it wasn't on the news, then the question is why wasn't that reported?
 
Back
Top Bottom