• 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

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.

One second is not time to place a weapon down.
 
Those all are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if he was posing an imminent threat

He wasn't

Irrelevant to any point I have attempted to make. You keep repeating it for that reason...because it seems 'right'. That's nice.

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.

Taken in context, my statement meant that it doesnt matter what the caller said, *I also saw many of the same things on the video.* It was a confirmation.

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

Irrelevant to any point I have attempted to make. You keep repeating it for that reason...because it seems 'right'. That's nice.

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

This is beneath you but it speaks to desperation. I never said she accused him of anything....nor implied it. Dont make stuff up. When we see odd behavior...sometimes we assess it before we act. Sometimes, impressions are cumulative. If she didnt feel threatened, she obviously found his behavior abnormal...and left. Her actions demonstrate her concern. When I see disturbing or even weird behavior, I often wait to see what's up. Are they on the phone and I cant see it? Are there other people I cant see? Etc.

As I said, several people here also saw abnormal behavior from the guy with the gun. Not just her, not just the caller. Your assumptions about 'everyone else's' perceptions are wrong. That is a fact, since we are stating them clearly.

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.

Really? And the cause was confirmed by what medical examiner's report?
 
Irrelevant to any point I have attempted to make. You keep repeating it for that reason...because it seems 'right'. That's nice.

Not because it seems right. Because it's standard police policy and for good reason.


Taken in context, my statement meant that it doesnt matter what the caller said, *I also saw many of the same things on the video.* It was a confirmation.

What someone imagines they see is irrelevant.


Irrelevant to any point I have attempted to make. You keep repeating it for that reason...because it seems 'right'. That's nice.

I keep repeating it because it's true


This is beneath you but it speaks to desperation. I never said she accused him of anything....nor implied it. Dont make stuff up.

Here is what you said
The mother that took her kids and immediately left the area....she's gotat a reputation for falsely accusing people of threatening behavior too?

She did not leave the area immediately and when she left, she left her daughter behind. And I responded to your question about her reputation by pointing out that she didn't have such a reputation because she make *any* accusations.

When we see odd behavior...sometimes we assess it before we act. Sometimes, impressions are cumulative. If she didnt feel threatened, she obviously found his behavior abnormal...and left. Her actions demonstrate her concern. When I see disturbing or even weird behavior, I often wait to see what's up. Are they on the phone and I cant see it? Are there other people I cant see? Etc.

Crawford did nothing in front of the police (before he was shot) that was odd or threatening.

And she never said anything about Crawfords behavior being odd (because she died at the scene) so now you're just making stuff up.

And how does her going back into the store with her children demonstrate that she was concerned about Crawford? When you are concerned about an "odd" man with a gun, do you bring your children to see what he's going to do?

As I said, several people here also saw abnormal behavior from the guy with the gun. Not just her, not just the caller. Your assumptions about 'everyone else's' perceptions are wrong. That is a fact, since we are stating them clearly.

I don't care what a million people think they saw.

Really? And the cause was confirmed by what medical examiner's report?

Yeah, the fact she died while running after shots were fired is just a coincidence. :roll:
 
Not because it seems right. Because it's standard police policy and for good reason.

What someone imagines they see is irrelevant.

I keep repeating it because it's true


Here is what you said

She did not leave the area immediately and when she left, she left her daughter behind. And I responded to your question about her reputation by pointing out that she didn't have such a reputation because she make *any* accusations.



Crawford did nothing in front of the police (before he was shot) that was odd or threatening.

And she never said anything about Crawfords behavior being odd (because she died at the scene) so now you're just making stuff up.

And how does her going back into the store with her children demonstrate that she was concerned about Crawford? When you are concerned about an "odd" man with a gun, do you bring your children to see what he's going to do?

I don't care what a million people think they saw.

Yeah, the fact she died while running after shots were fired is just a coincidence.

So a post basically saying 'na huh.' Nothing new and absolutely nothing refuted. Just 'na huh, I already said so.'

ALtho you did admit we dont know why she had the heart attack. Thank you.

I think we're done here unless you come up with some new material.

Mine will remain for anyone else....as per my signature below, in green.
 
So a post basically saying 'na huh.' Nothing new and absolutely nothing refuted. Just 'na huh, I already said so.'

ALtho you did admit we dont know why she had the heart attack. Thank you.

I think we're done here unless you come up with some new material.

Mine will remain for anyone else....as per my signature below, in green.

I don't need anything new. When the facts are on my side, I stick to the facts. The fact is, not shooting people who don't pose an imminent threat is good policy and a standard for police depts across the nation.

Crawford was not posing an imminent threat at the time he was shot.
 
I don't need anything new. When the facts are on my side, I stick to the facts. The fact is, not shooting people who don't pose an imminent threat is good policy and a standard for police depts across the nation.

Crawford was not posing an imminent threat at the time he was shot.

You aren't sticking to any facts. You are stubbornly clinging to your own agenda driven position of events, which are dubious at best.
 
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.

We can only hear the cops that are near the guy on the phone, and even they can just be heard. There were more cops further away, far enough, that even speaking loudly or shouting might not have made it to the phone.

But it doesn't matter because what I saw in the video showed him raising the gun up after the first officer to be heard shouted at him to drop it, which is justification for them to shoot. It may have been due to confusion that he made that move, but they didn't know that. Hindsight is 20/20. They couldn't possibly know that it wasn't a real, high powered rifle in that few seconds, nor that he wasn't likely planning to shoot anyone. There was just as much chance, from the view of the police, that this guy could have raised up that rifle, that it could have been real, and he could have shot them had they hesitated that few seconds to see if he was going to raise it farther up or drop it on the ground.
 
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?

Except the police officers had no idea what had been going on except what they had been told. They could not know anything except that they had a guy, with a gun, in a crowded (?) store, who possibly loaded it, was swinging it around, and they had been told had been aiming it at people. When they showed up and found that yes there was a guy with a rifle where they had been told he would be, that confirms at least part of the story. They then ordered him to drop what they believed was a loaded rifle (not a BB gun), and instead of complying, he appears to try to raise the gun. This is a threatening gesture when you have a rifle, even a toy one or a BB gun, in your hand and cops have guns aimed at you.
 
You aren't sticking to any facts. You are stubbornly clinging to your own agenda driven position of events, which are dubious at best.

So what facts point to Crawford needing a bullet in the chest?
 
None. I'm pretty sure nobody has ever needed a bullet in the chest.

oh I can think of a few

Manson and his "family"
Bundy
Hitler
Mao
Pol Pot
John Wayne Gacy
Henry Lee Lucas
 
oh I can think of a few

Manson and his "family"
Bundy
Hitler
Mao
Pol Pot
John Wayne Gacy
Henry Lee Lucas
I would prefer a head shot for the likes of them. But I see your point.
 
We can only hear the cops that are near the guy on the phone, and even they can just be heard. There were more cops further away, far enough, that even speaking loudly or shouting might not have made it to the phone.

Wrong. The police don't whisper to a man with a gun, and you can see that Crawford doesn't make any reaction until you can hear the cop yell at him "Get down...put the gun down!"

And even if they had said something earlier, the recording shows he did nothing that posed an imminent threat.


But it doesn't matter because what I saw in the video showed him raising the gun up after the first officer to be heard shouted at him to drop it, which is justification for them to shoot.

No, the recording shows that he did not raise the gun up. He was dropping it and the barrel was pointed at the floor the entire time.
 
Wrong. The police don't whisper to a man with a gun, and you can see that Crawford doesn't make any reaction until you can hear the cop yell at him "Get down...put the gun down!"

And even if they had said something earlier, the recording shows he did nothing that posed an imminent threat.




No, the recording shows that he did not raise the gun up. He was dropping it and the barrel was pointed at the floor the entire time.


If that is true, then why no indictment? Maybe you don't have all the facts?
 
Wrong. The police don't whisper to a man with a gun, and you can see that Crawford doesn't make any reaction until you can hear the cop yell at him "Get down...put the gun down!"

And even if they had said something earlier, the recording shows he did nothing that posed an imminent threat.


No, the recording shows that he did not raise the gun up. He was dropping it and the barrel was pointed at the floor the entire time.

It could have been said pretty loudly and still not picked up over a phone that was more than 20 feet away and pressed against someone's face. We don't know how close the officers we could hear were to the guy, so we have no way of knowing how well the phone was picking out background noise.

You are wrong about the barrel pointing down the entire time. It was being brought up, whether intentionally or by reflex just before the guy was shot. I watched it and gave the exact time when it happened.
 
Wrong. The police don't whisper to a man with a gun, and you can see that Crawford doesn't make any reaction until you can hear the cop yell at him "Get down...put the gun down!"

And even if they had said something earlier, the recording shows he did nothing that posed an imminent threat.


Must have been a liberal cop. Liberals seem to think that having a gun nearby is always an imminent threat.
 
Last edited:
I guess OJ really is innocent then

Why do you have to go to the extreme? No one is talking about OJ. I merely asked you why, if what you say is true did the GJ fail to indict? And could it be that you are not privy to all the evidence they saw? Or, is it just that the black man was shot by cops, and that's all you need in your mind to indict them on your own?
 
Why do you have to go to the extreme? No one is talking about OJ. I merely asked you why, if what you say is true did the GJ fail to indict? And could it be that you are not privy to all the evidence they saw? Or, is it just that the black man was shot by cops, and that's all you need in your mind to indict them on your own?

You're wasting your time. Bitter little trolls are best put on ignore.
 
It could have been said pretty loudly and still not picked up over a phone that was more than 20 feet away and pressed against someone's face. We don't know how close the officers we could hear were to the guy, so we have no way of knowing how well the phone was picking out background noise.

You are wrong about the barrel pointing down the entire time. It was being brought up, whether intentionally or by reflex just before the guy was shot. I watched it and gave the exact time when it happened.

Again, we can see that Crawford doesn't move or react in any way. Not moving is not a response that can be considered dangerous. And the gun was at his side and pointed down throughout the entire encounter with the police
 
Again, we can see that Crawford doesn't move or react in any way. Not moving is not a response that can be considered dangerous. And the gun was at his side and pointed down throughout the entire encounter with the police

I saw that he moved. I don't know why you didn't see it, but it did happen. The gun was coming/moving up just before he was shot. Like I said, don't know if this was done intentionally or just a reaction, but he was moving the gun up, even if slowly, just before he was shot. I gave the time to the second earlier in this thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom