• 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

j-mac said:
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?
Click to expand...

The only thing the GJ decision demonstrates is that a certain group of people did not believe there was enough evidence to charge to the officer. It doesn't reveal anything about the facts (added on edit) Their only job is to decide if there's enough evidence to charge the officer with a criminal offense. Their job is not deciding if it was good police work.

The facts are that a man who did not do anything criminal or that presented an imminent danger to anyone was shot while dropping his weapon as ordered.

And arguing that they had, or might have had, more evidence is just speculation. I will base my opinions on the evidence that is available.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
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?
Click to expand...

It looks to me like a borderline execution, and incredibly poorly handled, and I wouldn't have the cops who killed him on any force I was responsible for, but even with all that, I'm not sure I'd have voted to indict the officers. He WAS holding a gun and they did have a caller making up facts about the guy that likely had a big influence on how they interpreted what they saw. And when the guy came flying back around the corner, it was threatening. Bottom line is there's a big difference in my view between just awful police work, and an officer with a hair trigger who treated the suspect more like a combatant in war than a citizen of the U.S. and a criminal act that should send the officer to jail for many years. Looked like a perfect storm of awful decisions by several people with good intentions with a tragic outcome.

But in a civil suit, knowing what I've seen on the video, this would be a simple decision for the plaintiff, the victim's family. The only question is how $much.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

He doesn't move until *after* you can hear the police yell "Get down!". If his movement was a reaction, it wasn't to something the cops said before that (that we didn't hear) It was a reaction to the cops yelling "Get down!"

And the gun was swinging slightly but barely moved from pointed straight down. It never came close to pointing at anything but the floor and was not being raised to a firing a position. If, as you have claimed, the cops had been talking to him for some period of time before that which we could hear on the recording, then they would have seen that this was what he had been doing (swinging the gun barrel slightly) and was not a movement to raise the gun.
 
sangha said:
He doesn't move until *after* you can hear the police yell "Get down!". If his movement was a reaction, it wasn't to something the cops said before that (that we didn't hear) It was a reaction to the cops yelling "Get down!"

And the gun was swinging slightly but barely moved from pointed straight down. It never came close to pointing at anything but the floor and was not being raised to a firing a position. If, as you have claimed, the cops had been talking to him for some period of time before that which we could hear on the recording, then they would have seen that this was what he had been doing (swinging the gun barrel slightly) and was not a movement to raise the gun.
Click to expand...

He moves the gun up as soon as the first officer (we can hear) says something, and that movement was lifting the gun up, then you hear the first shot fired. There was no movement at that time though that looked like him trying to get on the ground or going down at all. And we have no idea what was going on or how much the police saw. I also never claimed that the police had been talking to him "for some period of time" that was longer than maybe a few additional seconds. In those seconds that we see the police arriving, he did not swing the gun at all. He had been doing that motion before they came into view, erratically.
 
roguenuke said:
He moves the gun up as soon as the first officer (we can hear) says something, and that movement was lifting the gun up, then you hear the first shot fired.
Click to expand...

No, the gun itself doesn't move up. The only movement of the gun is the barrel swinging slightly as it had been and it never was pointed at anything but the floor. If the cops were there before we can hear them, as you have suggested, they would have seen that. If they hadn't been there, as I believe, then they didn't give him any time.


There was no movement at that time though that looked like him trying to get on the ground or going down at all. And we have no idea what was going on or how much the police saw. I also never claimed that the police had been talking to him "for some period of time" that was longer than maybe a few additional seconds. In those seconds that we see the police arriving, he did not swing the gun at all. He had been doing that motion before they came into view, erratically.
Click to expand...

Just before the shots ring out, the cop yells "Get down" and you can see his left leg jerk a bit to the left. The cop yells "Put the gun down" and then his right shoulder starts going down and the gun is being lowered. Then he is shot. In the "few additional seconds" before that (the cop yelling "Get down") Crawfords body doesn't move at all, and the only movement is a slight swinging of the gun barrel (which is continually pointed at the floor)
 
sangha said:
No, the gun itself doesn't move up. The only movement of the gun is the barrel swinging slightly as it had been and it never was pointed at anything but the floor. If the cops were there before we can hear them, as you have suggested, they would have seen that. If they hadn't been there, as I believe, then they didn't give him any time.

Just before the shots ring out, the cop yells "Get down" and you can see his left leg jerk a bit to the left. The cop yells "Put the gun down" and then his right shoulder starts going down and the gun is being lowered. Then he is shot. In the "few additional seconds" before that (the cop yelling "Get down") Crawfords body doesn't move at all, and the only movement is a slight swinging of the gun barrel (which is continually pointed at the floor)
Click to expand...

It moved up, even if the barrel didn't make it up far enough to point at anything or anyone above floor level. The cops had no way of knowing if that gun would move further up to shoot one of them or someone else who might not have moved from the area quick enough.

The first movement of the barrel up is what caused the first shots to be fired. The rifle was not being put down at that time. I have no idea if he had been shot at that point. But that is almost certainly what prompted the shots being fired because it can be construed as a "threatening gesture" since the police have no way of knowing if the rifle is going to be put down in the next few seconds or continue to come up to shoot someone.
 
roguenuke said:
It moved up, even if the barrel didn't make it up far enough to point at anything or anyone above floor level. The cops had no way of knowing if that gun would move further up to shoot one of them or someone else who might not have moved from the area quick enough.

The first movement of the barrel up is what caused the first shots to be fired. The rifle was not being put down at that time. I have no idea if he had been shot at that point. But that is almost certainly what prompted the shots being fired because it can be construed as a "threatening gesture" since the police have no way of knowing if the rifle is going to be put down in the next few seconds or continue to come up to shoot someone.
Click to expand...

I just rewatched the video, and at the moment the cop yells "Get down", the barrel of the gun is moving down, not up. Before we can hear the cop yell, Crawford had swung the barrel up slightly (as he had been doing previously) and by the time the cop yelled "Get down" the barrel of the gun was swinging down.

At 8:26;53, he swings the barrel up. By 8:26:55 it is pointed straight down. At 8:26:55:10 the barrel has swung so that it's pointing *behind him* which is when the officer yells "Get down" after which the barrel moves to be pointing straight down and his left leg moves.

At no time after we can hear the cop starts yelling does the barrel or the gun itself move up
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
I just rewatched the video, and at the moment the cop yells "Get down", the barrel of the gun is moving down, not up. Before we can hear the cop yell, Crawford had swung the barrel up slightly (as he had been doing previously) and by the time the cop yelled "Get down" the barrel of the gun was swinging down.
Click to expand...

And I saw differently when I watched it. See the problem here yet?
 
roguenuke said:
And I saw differently when I watched it. See the problem here yet?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do

I think you should watch the video a few more times. First read my post just above yours (#257) where I note the exact moment the cop yells "Get down!" (8:26:55:10) and where the gun barrel is pointed (at the floor behind him). From that moment on, you can see that the neither the gun barrel nor the gun itself is ever raised. From that moment to the moment he is shot, the gun barrel goes from being pointed slightly up (at the floor behind him) to being pointed straight down, which happens because Crawford *lowers* the gun, not raising it
 
sangha said:
Yes, I do

I think you should watch the video a few more times. First read my post just above yours (#257) where I note the exact moment the cop yells "Get down!" (8:26:55:10) and where the gun barrel is pointed (at the floor behind him). From that moment on, you can see that the neither the gun barrel nor the gun itself is ever raised. From that moment to the moment he is shot, the gun barrel goes from being pointed slightly up (at the floor behind him) to being pointed straight down, which happens because Crawford *lowers* the gun, not raising it
Click to expand...

I have watched it a number of times, and do not see what you are seeing. I saw something very different. I saw the barrel begin to rise up and that was when the first shots were fired. That is what prompted the shooting.
 
roguenuke said:
I have watched it a number of times, and do not see what you are seeing. I saw something very different. I saw the barrel begin to rise up and that was when the first shots were fired. That is what prompted the shooting.
Click to expand...

Watch the video a few more times. While doing so, pause it and note the time and what is happening. Pay close attention to where the gun barrel is pointing.

As I noted:
At 8:26;53, he swings the barrel up. By 8:26:55 it is pointed straight down. At 8:26:55:10 the barrel has swung so that it's pointing *behind him*
Click to expand...

You can time it so that you hit Pause right at 8:26:53 and you will see that is when he swings the gun barrel up. At that time, the cops can not be heard yet and he hasn't been shot yet.

Then hit Play and watch the barrel swing back down and hit Pause when the gun barrel is pointed straight down. The time will be 8:26:55

Then hit Play again and watch the barrel continue swinging back until it is pointing behind him (and towards the floor)

Then the cop yells, the barrel swings to be pointing straight down and Crawford is shot and falls.
 
roguenuke said:
I have watched it a number of times, and do not see what you are seeing. I saw something very different. I saw the barrel begin to rise up and that was when the first shots were fired. That is what prompted the shooting.
Click to expand...

Really? You honestly believe that simply lifting the barrel, which is still not pointed at the police, was reason enough to kill?

If this is true, I have no reason to respond to your post regarding this topic anymore. You must live in constant fear of every minor movement made by people around you.
 
Tettsuo said:
Really? You honestly believe that simply lifting the barrel, which is still not pointed at the police, was reason enough to kill?

If this is true, I have no reason to respond to your post regarding this topic anymore. You must live in constant fear of every minor movement made by people around you.
Click to expand...

It was this with the other information, even if false, that the police had which led to the outcome. It wasn't this movement alone that led to it.
 
Tettsuo said:
Really? You honestly believe that simply lifting the barrel, which is still not pointed at the police, was reason enough to kill?

If this is true, I have no reason to respond to your post regarding this topic anymore. You must live in constant fear of every minor movement made by people around you.
Click to expand...
Raise a weapon in my direction. You will be met with every bit of firepower I possess.
 
Tettsuo said:
Really? You honestly believe that simply lifting the barrel, which is still not pointed at the police, was reason enough to kill?

If this is true, I have no reason to respond to your post regarding this topic anymore. You must live in constant fear of every minor movement made by people around you.
Click to expand...

If you watch the video clearly (see my earlier posts for times to look for) you will see that the gun barrel was being *lowered*, not raised, at the time he was shot.
 
CRUE CAB said:
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?
Click to expand...

C'mon man, you're messing up the, "shopping while black" talking points.
 
sangha said:
If you watch the video clearly (see my earlier posts for times to look for) you will see that the gun barrel was being *lowered*, not raised, at the time he was shot.
Click to expand...

Put it down means put it down. Period. Anything short of that is still a threat.
 
CRUE CAB said:
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?
Click to expand...
The same 911 caller who repeatedly lied about things. Totally credible.
 
I guess non threatening people carrying a weapon is illegal and punishable by instant death now in america. Walmart and the cops should be paying this family enough money to live without a father figure for life. Its insane that the cops can just say, "oops" and get away with it. If he never pointed the weapon at cops and was never given a chance to "surrender" then how was this killing justified exactly??? Why cant they just admit the cop was scared and fired first with questions later. Not suitable for high stress duties.

Zero shots fired by the victim, before and after police arrived. Zero aggression showed by the victim. Never given the chance to "surrender". Executed without a jury.

And yet the police say he refused to put down the weapon.... Hrmmmmm. Cover your own arse?
 
CRUE CAB said:
Put it down means put it down. Period. Anything short of that is still a threat.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the person has to have a realistic chance to 1) hear the command, 2) process it, 3) act on it. I can't see how anyone can watch the tape and conclude the guy was given more than a remote chance to comply.

"DROP IT!! DROP IT!!! BAMMM!" isn't going to work more than 1 time out of 100, and probably only by accident when the guy is so shocked he drops it out of instinct.
 
sangha said:
The only thing the GJ decision demonstrates is that a certain group of people did not believe there was enough evidence to charge to the officer. It doesn't reveal anything about the facts (added on edit) Their only job is to decide if there's enough evidence to charge the officer with a criminal offense. Their job is not deciding if it was good police work.

The facts are that a man who did not do anything criminal or that presented an imminent danger to anyone was shot while dropping his weapon as ordered.

And arguing that they had, or might have had, more evidence is just speculation. I will base my opinions on the evidence that is available.
Click to expand...
So you know more than the GJ? We are not debating the quality or lack of, as it pertains to the policing. The thread title is about the officers involved not being indicted. Your premise seems to be, and i could be wrong, but it seems like you'd be all for ignoring the lack of indictment and trying them anyway?
 
JasperL said:
It looks to me like a borderline execution, and incredibly poorly handled, and I wouldn't have the cops who killed him on any force I was responsible for, but even with all that, I'm not sure I'd have voted to indict the officers. He WAS holding a gun and they did have a caller making up facts about the guy that likely had a big influence on how they interpreted what they saw. And when the guy came flying back around the corner, it was threatening. Bottom line is there's a big difference in my view between just awful police work, and an officer with a hair trigger who treated the suspect more like a combatant in war than a citizen of the U.S. and a criminal act that should send the officer to jail for many years. Looked like a perfect storm of awful decisions by several people with good intentions with a tragic outcome.

But in a civil suit, knowing what I've seen on the video, this would be a simple decision for the plaintiff, the victim's family. The only question is how $much.
Click to expand...
So are you for a police force that hesitates?
 
j-mac said:
So you know more than the GJ?
Click to expand...

I know that it's not the GJ's job to judge whether the police officer performed well.

We are not debating the quality or lack of, as it pertains to the policing.
Click to expand...

Actually, we are. You may not be, but others are.

The thread title is about the officers involved not being indicted. Your premise seems to be, and i could be wrong, but it seems like you'd be all for ignoring the lack of indictment and trying them anyway?
Click to expand...

Yes, the thread title is about the officer not being indicted. The discussion is a little broader.

Unsuprisingly, you are wrong.
 
j-mac said:
So are you for a police force that hesitates?
Click to expand...

100% for a police force that "hesitates" before they shoot to kill.

In this case, the suspect had not fired his gun, hadn't directly threatened anyone, held no one hostage, there was no civilian anywhere near him. It was ONE suspect and a team of police armed with assault rifles. If police can't "hesitate" in this instance, then we give them free rein to kill with the slightest provocation, whenever they are less than 100% sure of a suspect's intentions. Put your hand in your pocket at the wrong time - dead. Etc. That's OK in a war zone, but not in a Walmart in the U.S.

Just curious - if that was your son, do you back up the police there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom