• 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

Fenton said:
Not unless it is a purposefully and blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ecofarm said:
It appears police had no reason to believe the rifle was from Walmart or an air rifle.
Click to expand...

And if it were a real rifle, does it warrant automatic execution?
 
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.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely true - from the video, just before the suspect is shot, a mother and two kids enter the pet supplies aisle where the suspect is and while they don't appear to interact, the mother and kids don't appear to feel the least bit threatened and the suspect doesn't aim the rifle at them or even seem to acknowledge they're there.

The connection of the video surveillance and the 911 audio is a little confusing to me because we're left with the impression that the caller is seeing exactly what's on the video when the truth is, I believe, that the caller is somewhere down in the store observing the suspect from a totally different angle. The caller may be seeing things we aren't in the video but it's clear his account of what the suspect is doing is patently false in many respects.
 
CanadaJohn said:
This is absolutely true - from the video, just before the suspect is shot, a mother and two kids enter the pet supplies aisle where the suspect is and while they don't appear to interact, the mother and kids don't appear to feel the least bit threatened and the suspect doesn't aim the rifle at them or even seem to acknowledge they're there.

The connection of the video surveillance and the 911 audio is a little confusing to me because we're left with the impression that the caller is seeing exactly what's on the video when the truth is, I believe, that the caller is somewhere down in the store observing the suspect from a totally different angle. The caller may be seeing things we aren't in the video but it's clear his account of what the suspect is doing is patently false in many respects.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that the officers should not be held accountable for their actions and the caller should be?
 
Tettsuo said:
Do you believe that the officers should not be held accountable for their actions and the caller should be?
Click to expand...

I've said numerous times here and on other threads that the officer should be held accountable for his actions.

Personally, I don't believe the officer should have clearly been charged, there's room for doubt, but I also do not believe he should still be a police officer, at least not one who carries a weapon in public. I also believe, particularly in the US, this matter is ripe for a civil lawsuit definitely against the police, possibly against Walmart if the gun the suspect was carrying was store merchandise that wasn't properly contained before sale, and also possibly the 911 caller who appears, to me, to be falsely reporting to the 911 operator a scenario far more dangerous and potentially deadly than what clearly existed from the video. To use an old analogy, if you yell fire in a crowded movie theater and there's no fire and someone gets hurt or dies in the rush to exit, you are partially culpable/liable for the harm you cause.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I've said numerous times here and on other threads that the officer should be held accountable for his actions.

Personally, I don't believe the officer should have clearly been charged, there's room for doubt, but I also do not believe he should still be a police officer, at least not one who carries a weapon in public. I also believe, particularly in the US, this matter is ripe for a civil lawsuit definitely against the police, possibly against Walmart if the gun the suspect was carrying was store merchandise that wasn't properly contained before sale, and also possibly the 911 caller who appears, to me, to be falsely reporting to the 911 operator a scenario far more dangerous and potentially deadly than what clearly existed from the video. To use an old analogy, if you yell fire in a crowded movie theater and there's no fire and someone gets hurt or dies in the rush to exit, you are partially culpable/liable for the harm you cause.
Click to expand...

I'm a lot more critical of the officer. It's suppose to be their job to assess the situation, not blindly follow a caller's statements. At no point did they give the man, who is not threatening anyone and who did not point the weapon at them, reasonable opportunity to respond.
 
americanwoman said:
They wouldn't have. I was talking about wishing the caller could get some kind of false police report charge since he was falsely reporting details that were proven wrong by the surveillance camera.
Click to expand...
I have to admit, my personal visualization of the caller's narrative didn't match what I was seeing in the video.
 
During the time that the caller told the 911 operator that the guy was pointing a gun at two children the guy had the gun pointed down and he wasn't even moving his arms. The 911 caller should be held accountable for his lying.

As for the police, the guy with the gun was standing part way down the aisle so he wouldn't have seen the other police officer that was coming from the direction off camera. So that policeman more than likely was not talking to him as police do try and have an eye on the suspect before talking to them when possible. The only time that I can see the guy with the gun reacting to the police is when the one that comes in through the door and practically starts shooting immediately with maybe 2 seconds of hollering something at the guy with the gun before shooting him. The cops should have been indicted.
 
Last edited:
Crovax said:
You have to be 18 to buy one by law in most places and by walmart policy just like a gun, and the ones that are sold at walmart have enough power to kill.

Heres a story about a death by a .177 pellet gun

South Auckland air rifle victim named | NZNews | 3 News
Click to expand...

What exactly is your point? The man wasn't pointing the toy at anyone... certainly not the police. Or is it just standard protocol now to shoot if someone is carrying a weapon in an open carry state?
 
Tettsuo said:
What exactly is your point? The man wasn't pointing the toy at anyone... certainly not the police. Or is it just standard protocol now to shoot if someone is carrying a weapon in an open carry state?
Click to expand...

Open carry doesnt apply if you hold the gun in a threatening manner, the video isnt very clear on what exactly he is doing with the gun. Hes a black guy with a black shirt holding a black gun, hard to tell whats going on in the low definition video
 
Crovax said:
Open carry doesnt apply if you hold the gun in a threatening manner, the video isnt very clear on what exactly he is doing with the gun. Hes a black guy with a black shirt holding a black gun, hard to tell whats going on in the low definition video
Click to expand...
What I can tell is not going on is this man is not roaming the store like he's in a paint-ball arena, pointing the rifle at people. I would even go so far as to say he did not point the rifle at those 2 children.

He's still an idiot for walking around with a rifle in his hand, but that doesn't excuse the caller.
 
Jerry said:
What I can tell is not going on is this man is not roaming the store like he's in a paint-ball arena, pointing the rifle at people. I would even go so far as to say he did not point the rifle at those 2 children.

He's still an idiot for walking around with a rifle in his hand, but that doesn't excuse the caller.
Click to expand...

Why? It's a toy and he wasn't acting like it was real.
 
Tettsuo said:
Why? It's a toy and he wasn't acting like it was real.
Click to expand...
It's not a toy, is the thing. Walking around with an air rifle in hand is exactly like walking around with a machete in hand.

If he were walking around with a Nerf gun, that would be very different.
 
Last edited:
Clearly the only solution is to disarm and disband all police officers and departments.
 
Tettsuo said:
I'm a lot more critical of the officer. It's suppose to be their job to assess the situation, not blindly follow a caller's statements. At no point did they give the man, who is not threatening anyone and who did not point the weapon at them, reasonable opportunity to respond.
Click to expand...


So easy for people like you that live warm cozy lives to criticize the police in situations like these. Sorry, but if I'm in a profession where my life is in danger every second, and some dude has a gun in a place that every person on Earth knows you shouldn't be having one, I err on the side of protecting my life and innocent people. Police officers aren't there nor is it their job to practice psychological evaluations. They are there to protect all of us, and themselves from dangerous people. This idiot brought a GUN into a public place and was behaving in a manner that suggests he was working up his courage to do something that unbeknownst to the police, could have been some mass shooting for whatever reason. I chalk this up to one less idiot that can breed.

Bye bye..


Tim-
 
Jerry said:
What I can tell is not going on is this man is not roaming the store like he's in a paint-ball arena, pointing the rifle at people. I would even go so far as to say he did not point the rifle at those 2 children.

He's still an idiot for walking around with a rifle in his hand, but that doesn't excuse the caller.
Click to expand...

its hard to tell since he was standing perpendicular to the kids, you can only really see the gun when he has it pointed down the back aisle. The mom gets her kids and moves away when she sees him so she saw something wasnt right.
 
Hicup said:
So easy for people like you that live warm cozy lives to criticize the police in situations like these. Sorry, but if I'm in a profession where my life is in danger every second, and some dude has a gun in a place that every person on Earth knows you shouldn't be having one, I err on the side of protecting my life and innocent people. Police officers aren't there nor is it their job to practice psychological evaluations. They are there to protect all of us, and themselves from dangerous people. This idiot brought a GUN into a public place and was behaving in a manner that suggests he was working up his courage to do something that unbeknownst to the police, could have been some mass shooting for whatever reason. I chalk this up to one less idiot that can breed.

Bye bye..

Tim-
Click to expand...

1 - Ohio is an open carry state. Even if he carried a load gun into the store, that legal and he shouldn't be shot for it.
2 - The store SELLS the item in question.
3 - He was not threatening anyone.
4 - At Crawford never pointed the item at the police.
5 - The man was never a threat.

So basically, all of your points are straight up nonsense.
 
Tettsuo said:
1 - Ohio is an open carry state. Even if he carried a load gun into the store, that legal and he shouldn't be shot for it.
2 - The store SELLS the item in question.
3 - He was not threatening anyone.
4 - At Crawford never pointed the item at the police.
5 - The man was never a threat.

So basically, all of your points are straight up nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yeah nonsense... Just like the people against torture, you folks crack me up. Actually you're very scary in a sad sort of way! You're all super duper proud of your stances, yet with the coin flipped you wouldn't hesitate to do whatever it took to prevent harm from coming to you or your own families. And if you weren't willing to protect your family based on your ideology, then you're a danger to them, and yourself! Cops don't have the benefit of doubt, especially in today's world where terrorists lurk in every city, cops being gunned down in their squad cars, mass shootings almost monthly.. Yeah, sure, the cop should have said, hey there fella, you ok, can you put the rifle away so we can talk.. :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Yeah nonsense... Just like the people against torture, you folks crack me up. Actually you're very scary in a sad sort of way! You're all super duper proud of your stances, yet with the coin flipped you wouldn't hesitate to do whatever it took to prevent harm from coming to you or your own families. And if you weren't willing to protect your family based on your ideology, then you're a danger to them, and yourself! Cops don't have the benefit of doubt, especially in today's world where terrorists lurk in every city, cops being gunned down in their squad cars, mass shootings almost monthly.. Yeah, sure, the cop should have said, hey there fella, you ok, can you put the rifle away so we can talk.. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

Yeah... that's exactly what the cop should have said as the item was never pointed in their direction. There was NO threat. WTF are you even talking about? Are you saying he was a threat when at no time did he point the item at the officers? I could understand it if the man was aggressive or made a motion to raise the item in their direction, but NONE of that happened.

So is your point is...
open+carry.jpg

should be shot. Is that correct?

Oh... and she's a idiot.
 
Last edited:
Crovax said:
The mom gets her kids and moves away when she sees him so she saw something wasnt right.
Click to expand...

The little girl stood for a second or two looking at the fish after the mother started to turn the cart around to leave. I as a mother, if I was concerned about a situation, I would not leave my daughter behind like that. I can't speak for all mothers but if she was worried about the guy, she didn't seem to mind leaving her daughter behind to get shot first. I am very protective though and put my daughter over myself and would get between any suspicious behavior and my daughter while hustling her away.


Edit: Also if you watch the camera view on the left side when they leave the aisle she doesn't even look back to see if her daughter follows. She starts looking over to her right with the girl lagging behind. Then they stop and talk for a second or two and head back in front of that aisle. Not the actions of someone who thought something wasn't right.
 
Last edited:
Tettsuo said:
Yeah... that's exactly what the cop should have said as the item was never pointed in their direction. There was NO threat. WTF are you even talking about? Are you saying he was a threat when at no time did he point the item at the officers? I could understand it if the man was aggressive or made a motion to raise the item in their direction, but NONE of that happened.

So is your point is...
View attachment 67173454

should be shot. Is that correct?

Oh... and she's a idiot.
Click to expand...


That's a holstered weapon, and a lot different than one being held in your hands. The guy was a fool, and now he is no longer!

Tim-
 
americanwoman said:
The little girl stood for a second or two looking at the fish after the mother started to turn the cart around to leave. I as a mother, if I was concerned about a situation, I would not leave my daughter behind like that. I can't speak for all mothers but if she was worried about the guy, she didn't seem to mind leaving her daughter behind to get shot first. I am very protective though and put my daughter over myself and would get between any suspicious behavior and my daughter while hustling her away.


Edit: Also if you watch the camera view on the left side when they leave the aisle she doesn't even look back to see if her daughter follows. She starts looking over to her right with the girl lagging behind. Then they stop and talk for a second or two and head back in front of that aisle. Not the actions of someone who thought something wasn't right.
Click to expand...

If you look at the camera on the left she clearly makes an effort to go to the opposite side of the stack base when coming back in the door. She didnt look like she thought she was in danger but it doesnt look like normal customer movement to me.
 
Hicup said:
That's a holstered weapon, and a lot different than one being held in your hands. The guy was a fool, and now he is no longer!

Tim-
Click to expand...

That's a real weapon... not the toy the guy was carrying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom