No indictment in police shooting death of Ohio man carrying air rifle

lizzie · Oct 1, 2014

JasperL said:
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?

If it was my son, I'd have raised him to have a bit of sense, and not do something so stupid as to carry what looks like a lethal weapon, swinging it in a discount store. My son would not have gotten himself shot, unless he was being unreasonable, or was incapable of logical reasoning.

I think it's horrible that he was shot, but otoh, you don't charge a police officer, and expect him not to react as he has been trained.

sangha · Oct 1, 2014

lizzie said:
If it was my son, I'd have raised him to have a bit of sense, and not do something so stupid as to carry what looks like a lethal weapon, swinging it in a discount store. My son would not have gotten himself shot, unless he was being unreasonable, or was incapable of logical reasoning.

I think it's horrible that he was shot, but otoh, you don't charge a police officer, and expect him not to react as he has been trained.

I'm sure we all agree that any child you raise would never behave in anything but the most perfect of ways, but let's pretend it's possible that a child of yours, in a moment of weakness or youthful exuberance, actually did something that was less than perfect.

lizzie · Oct 1, 2014

sangha said:
I'm sure we all agree that any child you raise would never behave in anything but the most perfect of ways, but let's pretend it's possible that a child of yours, in a moment of weakness or youthful exuberance, actually did something that was less than perfect.

As a matter of fact, my own son was far from perfect. Fortunately, it didn't get him killed, because he knew not to put himself in that position. Any other tidbits of wisdom you can give to me?

JasperL · Oct 1, 2014

lizzie said:
If it was my son, I'd have raised him to have a bit of sense, and not do something so stupid as to carry what looks like a lethal weapon, swinging it in a discount store. My son would not have gotten himself shot, unless he was being unreasonable, or was incapable of logical reasoning.

I think it's horrible that he was shot, but otoh, you don't charge a police officer, and expect him not to react as he has been trained.

Give me a break, that's extremely weak, avoiding the question by blaming the victim who committed no crime at all and was carrying a BB/pellet gun he picked up in the Walmart while talking on the phone. Pathetic. Seriously.

And unless you're in that situation, I can't believe you'd blame someone for not acting rationally when one second he's talking on the phone, the next he's been SHOT while doing nothing wrong.

Finally, if you want a police force that believes the correct approach in that situation is "DROP IT DROP IT BAMMM!" in as long as it takes to say that as quickly as you can, good luck. I want no part of society that accepts that is the role of a police officer not in a war zone.

aseidner · Oct 1, 2014

lizzie said:
I think it's horrible that he was shot, but otoh, you don't charge a police officer, and expect him not to react as he has been trained.

Then perhaps we need to train police offers to be a little less trigger happy.

Here are the accounts of the police officers Officer narratives released in Beavercreek Walmart shooting | www.whio.com

They claim he failed to comply with multiple commands to drop the weapon and that he turned towards the police in an aggressive manner. None of that is supported by the surveillance video. They give him less than two seconds to drop the gun before firing.

lizzie · Oct 1, 2014

aseidner said:
Then perhaps we need to train police offers to be a little less trigger happy.

.

I would generally agree with that, but it depends on the situation.

sangha · Oct 1, 2014

lizzie said:
As a matter of fact, my own son was far from perfect. Fortunately, it didn't get him killed, because he knew not to put himself in that position. Any other tidbits of wisdom you can give to me?

Why yes, there is

No matter how well your child succeeds in not doing anything that would alarm any reasonable person, there is nothing he can do to stop someone (like the idiot who called 911 in this case) from calling 911 and reporting that someone fitting the description of your child has a gun and is threatening people. And there's no telling if the police who respond mistakenly believe that the object your son is holding (ex a stick, a wallet, a lighter - all of which police have mistaken for a gun) is a gun and shoot him.

When the police can shoot people, not because they are posing an imminent threat to others, but merely because they officer is scared, hyped-up, or ortherwise disturbed, then not even the most intelligent and well-behaved are safe from being shot by a police officer

vesper · Oct 1, 2014

aseidner said:
Then perhaps we need to train police offers to be a little less trigger happy.

Here are the accounts of the police officers Officer narratives released in Beavercreek Walmart shooting | www.whio.com

They claim he failed to comply with multiple commands to drop the weapon and that he turned towards the police in an aggressive manner. None of that is supported by the surveillance video. They give him less than two seconds to drop the gun before firing.

How do you come to that conclusion? How does a soundless video offer so much information?

sangha · Oct 1, 2014

vesper said:
How do you come to that conclusion? How does a soundless video offer so much information?

The video clearly shows that, contrary to the officer's account, Crawford did not turn towards the officer before he was shot

vesper · Oct 1, 2014

sangha said:
The video clearly shows that, contrary to the officer's account, Crawford did not turn towards the officer before he was shot

You might see a video (even one with no sound) and think that because you're seeing an actual sort of account of what happened, you know the whole story. And it's very rare that a video is actually going to be able to tell the whole story. I think just about every professor of Criminal Law would agree with that statement. The evidence given to the grand jury that we are not privy to didn't warrant an indictment of the officers. And we all know grand juries are known to indict a ham sandwich. Nevertheless, all the information has been turned over to the DOJ for further review.

aseidner · Oct 1, 2014

vesper said:
How do you come to that conclusion? How does a soundless video offer so much information?

The video is not soundless. You can hear them command Crawford to get down and immediately hear shots afterwards.

jimbo · Oct 1, 2014

lizzie said:
NO, they are not just as dangerous, and they are not classified as firearms in most places.

I think that while air rifles similar to the one in this case are not classified as firearms (firearms produce energy by expoding gunpowder), they are classified as dangerous weapons. Toy weapons have the orange tips. Eveything else is assumed to be dangerous.

IMO the police in this case had every reason to believe the weapon was dangerous. Whether they acted appropriately is another question.

lizzie · Oct 1, 2014

jimbo said:
I think that while air rifles similar to the one in this case are not classified as firearms (firearms produce energy by expoding gunpowder), they are classified as dangerous weapons. Toy weapons have the orange tips. Eveything else is assumed to be dangerous.

IMO the police in this case had every reason to believe the weapon was dangerous. Whether they acted appropriately is another question.

They had reason, based on how it looked on first glance, and the caller reinforced that. They aren't typically classified as a weapon, but also aren't classified as toys- probably mostly for liability purposes, if I were to take a guess. I can fully understand why they did what they did. It was a terrible mistake, but I can understand the reasoning.

lizzie · Oct 1, 2014

sangha said:
Why yes, there is

No matter how well your child succeeds in not doing anything that would alarm any reasonable person, there is nothing he can do to stop someone (like the idiot who called 911 in this case) from calling 911 and reporting that someone fitting the description of your child has a gun and is threatening people. And there's no telling if the police who respond mistakenly believe that the object your son is holding (ex a stick, a wallet, a lighter - all of which police have mistaken for a gun) is a gun and shoot him.

When the police can shoot people, not because they are posing an imminent threat to others, but merely because they officer is scared, hyped-up, or ortherwise disturbed, then not even the most intelligent and well-behaved are safe from being shot by a police officer

If you don't act in a threatening manner, or do something really stupid such as running away, the cops have no reason to shoot. Everything this guy did was a red flag.

sangha · Oct 1, 2014

vesper said:
You might see a video (even one with no sound) and think that because you're seeing an actual sort of account of what happened, you know the whole story. And it's very rare that a video is actually going to be able to tell the whole story. I think just about every professor of Criminal Law would agree with that statement. The evidence given to the grand jury that we are not privy to didn't warrant an indictment of the officers. And we all know grand juries are known to indict a ham sandwich. Nevertheless, all the information has been turned over to the DOJ for further review.

Yes, it is impossible to look at a video of a man and tell if he turned around. :screwy

sangha · Oct 1, 2014

lizzie said:
If you don't act in a threatening manner, or do something really stupid such as running away, the cops have no reason to shoot. Everything this guy did was a red flag.

Plenty of people have been shot by cops even though they did not act in a threatening manner nor run away. Crawford for one was shot even though he did neither.

I know a person who did nothing wrong, had no weapon, threatened no one (he was playing/wrestling in the snow with his girlfriend) and did not run away and was shot by a cop. Someone called 911 and reported an attempted rape. The cops came, saw him wrestling with his girlfriend, so they shot him.

vesper · Oct 1, 2014

aseidner said:
The video is not soundless. You can hear them command Crawford to get down and immediately hear shots afterwards.

I believe the video itself is soundless. What you are hearing are bits and pieces the police dispatcher is picking up over her radio.

aseidner · Oct 1, 2014

vesper said:
I believe the video itself is soundless. What you are hearing are bits and pieces the police dispatcher is picking up over her radio.

That is correct. It's the audio from the 911 call synced up to the surveillance video. As such, I admit that some sounds may have not been picked up. From what we can hear in the video, it doesn't sound like they gave him any chance at all to drop the weapon.

Unfortunately, the witness reports don't seem to help clarify much either (also doesn't help that I can't read the crappy handwriting): http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2014/09/26/Witness_Statements_-_Final_2.pdf

reinoe · Oct 2, 2014

roguenuke said:
Not quite admitting "he lied", at least at the time. Especially since what he says didn't happen isn't actually what he said happened in the call, "at no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody.". He actually never said that the guy "shouldered the rifle and pointed it at someone" in his call.

But this does go back to psychology. He may have believed at the time that he saw the guy point the rifle at someone and even load it (which is possible if the guy didn't know what kind of gun it was since certain movements can appear to be loading it when it comes to perspective). When is something a lie? Is a statement a lie when it is something a person knows is wrong or when what they believe is proven wrong?

Now, maybe this guy did truly lie on purpose, and if proven, he should be held accountable. However, this does not prove any lie on his part, only a change in perspective, especially since he had since been shown the video and people adjust their perspectives to new facts and information, even subconsciously.

Ronald Ritchie lied about what happened in the store. He lied about being an "Ex-Marine". And he was dishonorably discharged after 7 months because he had a fradulent enlistment. The guy is a habitual liar and I'm not at all surprised that you're doing what you can to defend that liar by making excuses for him.

He may have believed he was "an ex-marine" too right? He may have believed whatever falsehoods he told to fradulently enlist in the Marines in the first place too right? Ronald Ritchie has a long history of "maybe believing" all kinds of false statements he's made.

reinoe · Oct 2, 2014

lizzie said:
Everything this guy did was a red flag.

You mean like be Black in a Wal*Mart?

sangha · Oct 2, 2014

aseidner said:
That is correct. It's the audio from the 911 call synced up to the surveillance video. As such, I admit that some sounds may have not been picked up. From what we can hear in the video, it doesn't sound like they gave him any chance at all to drop the weapon.

Unfortunately, the witness reports don't seem to help clarify much either (also doesn't help that I can't read the crappy handwriting): http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2014/09/26/Witness_Statements_-_Final_2.pdf

Those eyewitness reports confirm what I've always believed:

WalMart shoppers are really, really dumb

upsideguy · Oct 2, 2014

lizzie said:
If you don't act in a threatening manner, or do something really stupid such as running away, the cops have no reason to shoot. Everything this guy did was a red flag.

Why not shoot this guy? He has a REAL gun in a department store.

Maybe because he isn't guilty of the obvious "red" flag, like this guy...

or this guy.

http://blackmanwithagun.com/is-open-carry-dangerous-for-a-black-man

http://www.theroot.com/articles/pol...n_carry_for_whites_open_season_on_blacks.html

dirtpoorchris · Oct 2, 2014

sangha said:
Yes, it is impossible to look at a video of a man and tell if he turned around. :screwy

Report padding is a god given cop right. Lay off of vesper. It costs a lot of money to hire new cops and train them. So padding reports and keeping unfit cops is a benefit to society. Its only 1 black guy.
(hope everyone can detect the sarcasm throughout.....)

JasperL · Oct 2, 2014

vesper said:
You might see a video (even one with no sound) and think that because you're seeing an actual sort of account of what happened, you know the whole story. And it's very rare that a video is actually going to be able to tell the whole story. I think just about every professor of Criminal Law would agree with that statement. The evidence given to the grand jury that we are not privy to didn't warrant an indictment of the officers. And we all know grand juries are known to indict a ham sandwich. Nevertheless, all the information has been turned over to the DOJ for further review.

I believe a more accurate version is, "A prosecutor could have a grand jury indict a ham sandwich - if he or she wanted."

And there is a big difference, at least in my view, between "the situation was disastrously handled by the police, ending in a needless and tragic death of a civilian who committed no crime" and "the police officer should be charged with a crime and jailed for 10-20 years for murder."

JasperL · Oct 2, 2014

upsideguy said:
Why not shoot this guy? He has a REAL gun in a department store.

Maybe because he isn't guilty of the obvious "red" flag, like this guy...

or this guy.

John Crawford Shooting: Open Carry for Whites; Open Season on Blacks - The Root

Wow, that video was amazing. I think there were at least five police cars, 10 cops, canine, all because a black guy was carrying a gun, and obviously threatening no one. I'm glad he didn't reach up to scratch his head....

Reminds me of this picture:

That was enough for St. Ronnie to sign gun control in California!

No indictment in police shooting death of Ohio man carrying air rifle

lizzie

sangha

lizzie

JasperL

aseidner

Member

lizzie

sangha

vesper

sangha

vesper

aseidner

Member

jimbo

lizzie

lizzie

sangha

sangha

vesper

aseidner

Member

reinoe

reinoe

sangha

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

dirtpoorchris

King of Videos

JasperL

JasperL