• 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

aseidner

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
132
Reaction score
111
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A grand jury in Ohio has decided not to indict police officers in the August shooting death of a 22-year-old man carrying an air rifle at a Walmart store in Beavercreek, Ohio.

"The grand jury listened to all the evidence, voted on it and decided that the police officers were justified in their use of force that day," prosecutor Mark Piepmeier said on Wednesday.

In a statement, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said the U.S. Justice Department will review the shooting of Cincinnati resident John Crawford III.

"Now that the state criminal investigation has finished, it is an appropriate time for the United States Department of Justice to look into whether any federal laws were violated during this shooting," the statement said.

Michael Wright, attorney representing Crawford's family, said the decision against indicting was "incomprehensible."

"It makes absolutely no sense that an unarmed 22-year-old man would be killed doing what any American citizen does every day: Shopping at a Walmart store," he said in a statement. "The Crawford family is extremely disappointed, disgusted and confused. They are heartbroken that justice was not done in the tragic death of their only son."

The statement added, "The Crawford family feels they have been victimized all over again and once again request that the U.S. Department of Justice conduct an independent investigation into the tragic death of John H. Crawford, lll."

Crawford was shot and killed by police at a Walmart in Beavercreek on August 5 while carrying an air rifle through the store. Police responded to the scene after a witness called 911 and told dispatchers that Crawford was walking around with a rifle and "waving it back and forth."

According to police, when officers arrived, Crawford did not comply with their commands to drop his weapon.

He was shot twice, once in the elbow and once in the torso, Piepmeier said.

Crawford died shortly after being transported to a nearby hospital. His death was ruled a homicide by gunshot wound to the torso, according to the local coroner's office.

No indictment in police shooting at Ohio Walmart - CNN.com

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. Watching the surveillance video, it does not even appear that the police gave Crawford a chance to surrender, opting to shoot first and ask questions later. The 911 caller shares some of the blame for this incident as well, as he describes Crawford as if he's behaving in a threatening manner when he clearly is not. Some other customers walk by and do even appear remotely threatened or worried. The whole thing was a bad situation for sure, but I think that the police were way too trigger happy and should face charges.

Here is the surveillance video for reference (shooting begins at 4:57): Surveillance video and 911 audio of Beavercreek Walmart shooting | Local News - WLWT Home
 
Piepmeier, who led the team of prosecutors that presented evidence to the Greene County grand jury, called Crawford's death "a perfect storm of circumstances."

First, there was the fact that an unwrapped air rifle was left on top of its box inside of the store. Next, the fact that Crawford decided to pick it up and carry it with him. And the fact that the 911 caller, identified in police reports as Ronald Ritchie, noticed the weapon in Crawford's hand and called authorities. And finally, the fact that the gun bore such a strong resemblance to an actual automatic weapon.

It appears police had no reason to believe the rifle was from Walmart or an air rifle.
 
An air rifle can still be deadly, so I dont see much of a distinction as to the police treatment of the weapon. Its hard to tell what really went on since the walmart audio is low and the action happens mostly off screen.
 
It appears police had no reason to believe the rifle was from Walmart or an air rifle.

Didn't we pass a law a while back where all air rifles that look even remotely "assault like" have orange tips? I'm not sure how you miss that...
 
Didn't we pass a law a while back where all air rifles that look even remotely "assault like" have orange tips? I'm not sure how you miss that...

Toy guns have orange tips, an air rifle is a real gun and can be just as dangerous

. Such term does not include any look-alike, nonfiring, collector replica of an antique firearm developed prior to 1898, or traditional B-B, paint-ball, or pellet-firing air guns that expel a projectile through the force of air pressure.

15 U.S.C. § 5001 : US Code - Section 5001: Penalties for entering into commerce of imitation firearms
 
None of the air rifles at Walmart appear to have any such marking.

For example:

Crosman MTR77 NP Break Barrel Rifle - Walmart.com

Toy guns have orange tips, an air rifle is a real gun and can be just as dangerous


15 U.S.C. § 5001 : US Code - Section 5001: Penalties for entering into commerce of imitation firearms

Oh okay, I was thinking of air-soft guns.

Airsoft - Walmart.com

As you can see, many of them do have orange tips. But when I googled air guns, the first site came up, none of them had the orange tips. So very well then. But I don't understand legally what's the difference though. Isn't the whole point of Orange tips was so cops wouldn't shoot kids, assuming they were using real rifles. Why are air guns different? Because they are more dangerous (why I agree with) they don't need Orange tips? That makes no sense...
 
Oh okay, I was thinking of air-soft guns.

Airsoft - Walmart.com

As you can see, many of them do have orange tips. But when I googled air guns, the first site came up, none of them had the orange tips. So very well then. But I don't understand legally what's the difference though. Isn't the whole point of Orange tips was so cops wouldn't shoot kids, assuming they were using real rifles. Why are air guns different? Because they are more dangerous (why I agree with) they don't need Orange tips? That makes no sense...

At any rate, the CNN article implies air guns are not accessible according to policy, thus him getting the gun in Walmart was not suspected. Police were under the presumption of the gun was from outside.
 
Last edited:
Oh okay, I was thinking of air-soft guns.

Airsoft - Walmart.com

As you can see, many of them do have orange tips. But when I googled air guns, the first site came up, none of them had the orange tips. So very well then. But I don't understand legally what's the difference though. Isn't the whole point of Orange tips was so cops wouldn't shoot kids, assuming they were using real rifles. Why are air guns different? Because they are more dangerous (why I agree with) they don't need Orange tips? That makes no sense...

An air gun shoots a metal pellet up to 6 times faster than an electric airsoft gun, they dont have orange tips because they are just as dangerous as real guns and should be treated the same
 
Let this be a lesson for ass munchers that think strapping on their AK, AR and H&K for brunch at Waffle House and a quick stroll through the sales rack at K-Mart is a great way to support the 2nd. @munchers: cops will ****ing shoot you, morons.
 
An air rifle can still be deadly, so I dont see much of a distinction as to the police treatment of the weapon. Its hard to tell what really went on since the walmart audio is low and the action happens mostly off screen.

An air rifle isn't going to be deadly to a human, unless it's large caliber, and you won't find those in Walmart. It's a very select audience who buys higher cal air rifles, and they are typically very knowledgeable about airguns, and are not stupid enough to walk around in the store, looking like they are carrying a regular rifle. I think the cops have gone overboard, but anyone who can't figure out that he looks like a potential threat, walking around with what looks like a rifle, shouldn't be carrying guns of any kind, at all. This entire story is tragic.
 
An air gun shoots a metal pellet up to 6 times faster than an electric airsoft gun, they dont have orange tips because they are just as dangerous as real guns and should be treated the same

NO, they are not just as dangerous, and they are not classified as firearms in most places.
 
I know most Walmarts and stores like that have a sporting section, I don't see why they can't keep those type of guns there, if they already don't, and then take them up front to be purchased before leaving. I don't think it's to anyone's benefit to have people walking around stores with realistic looking guns that may cause concern from other shoppers. That being said after watching the video, the police did not even give the guy a chance. The caller was totally exaggerating the situation causing the police to act with much more caution then they should have. From the time you can see the police entering near the aisle to the time that guy is dead on the floor is like less than 2 seconds. The police officer should have been charged and I would want the caller to be punished atleast for a false police report since it's obvious when he is reporting the guy is pointing the 'gun' at people and reloading that it is not even close to being true.
 
No indictment in police shooting at Ohio Walmart - CNN.com

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. Watching the surveillance video, it does not even appear that the police gave Crawford a chance to surrender, opting to shoot first and ask questions later. The 911 caller shares some of the blame for this incident as well, as he describes Crawford as if he's behaving in a threatening manner when he clearly is not. Some other customers walk by and do even appear remotely threatened or worried. The whole thing was a bad situation for sure, but I think that the police were way too trigger happy and should face charges.

Here is the surveillance video for reference (shooting begins at 4:57): Surveillance video and 911 audio of Beavercreek Walmart shooting | Local News - WLWT Home

There was another officer completely outside of the video, standing in the area on the far wall, facing him (you can see him run up after the guy goes down). Likely, that officer was talking to him, trying to get him to put down the rifle.

This guy was obviously disturbed or trying to start something. He spent at least 5 minutes (we don't know how long he stood there prior to the video starting) standing in the same spot in WalMart, slinging an air rifle back and forth the whole time. He wasn't picking up products from that area or anything. He was waiting for something to happen.
 
I know most Walmarts and stores like that have a sporting section, I don't see why they can't keep those type of guns there, if they already don't, and then take them up front to be purchased before leaving. I don't think it's to anyone's benefit to have people walking around stores with realistic looking guns that may cause concern from other shoppers. That being said after watching the video, the police did not even give the guy a chance. The caller was totally exaggerating the situation causing the police to act with much more caution then they should have. From the time you can see the police entering near the aisle to the time that guy is dead on the floor is like less than 2 seconds. The police officer should have been charged and I would want the caller to be punished atleast for a false police report since it's obvious when he is reporting the guy is pointing the 'gun' at people and reloading that it is not even close to being true.

You have no idea how long the officer who comes in from the other direction was there, talking to the guy, confronting him. You can't tell from the video and the camera angle, but you know he was there, since he runs up as soon as the guy goes down, along the far wall.

There was no false report. The caller saw the guy waving/swinging a rifle. He had no way to know what kind it was. The guy looks more interested in the rifle and to be waiting for something to happen than he is in whatever is on that shelf.
 
An air rifle isn't going to be deadly to a human, unless it's large caliber, and you won't find those in Walmart. It's a very select audience who buys higher cal air rifles, and they are typically very knowledgeable about airguns, and are not stupid enough to walk around in the store, looking like they are carrying a regular rifle. I think the cops have gone overboard, but anyone who can't figure out that he looks like a potential threat, walking around with what looks like a rifle, shouldn't be carrying guns of any kind, at all. This entire story is tragic.

And how was anyone to know whether the guy got the gun from WalMart or actually brought it in with him? I realize that it might be assumed that someone would see him walk in with it, but it might depend on the level of observation of the staff. The first employee we see doesn't even pay attention to him. If there was access to the store through the garden department (which was right there), then it is also possible that he came in through there. Or he could have also brought it in, saying he was looking for ammo for it and then walked around with it.
 
And how was anyone to know whether the guy got the gun from WalMart or actually brought it in with him? I realize that it might be assumed that someone would see him walk in with it, but it might depend on the level of observation of the staff. The first employee we see doesn't even pay attention to him. If there was access to the store through the garden department (which was right there), then it is also possible that he came in through there. Or he could have also brought it in, saying he was looking for ammo for it and then walked around with it.

I'll tell you something that struck me as very odd. At Walmart stores I have been to, the air rifles are in boxes. They aren't displayed like regular rifles in a case. If he was carrying an air rifle off the shelf, then he was doubly stupid for taking it out of the box and carrying it around the store. If he took it into the store with him, he was doubly stupid for not informing every single employee of what he was doing. People are stupid when it comes to guns, and you have to allow for the stupidity of the average joe not knowing what they are looking at. Just as another poster here claimed that air rifle are just as deadly as real rifles, the general public who doesn't shoot, has no idea what they are talking about, and should NOT be given the benefit of the doubt.

As for the ammo, air rifle pellets at Walmart come in two calibers. .177 and .22. You do not need the air rifle with you to find it. They comes in little metal cans, and the caliber of the airgun is usually marked on the barrel or the breach, and the cans are clearly marked as to caliber.
 
You have no idea how long the officer who comes in from the other direction was there, talking to the guy, confronting him. You can't tell from the video and the camera angle, but you know he was there, since he runs up as soon as the guy goes down, along the far wall.

There was no false report. The caller saw the guy waving/swinging a rifle. He had no way to know what kind it was. The guy looks more interested in the rifle and to be waiting for something to happen than he is in whatever is on that shelf.

Did you watch the video? You can see them approach at 8;26;54 to the aisle, the you can actually hear them at 8;26;55 scream something at the guy that sounds like drop the gun, at 8;26;56 they guy has his knees bended with the gun pointed down, like he is going to drop the gun, and then at 8;26;57 you hear the shots and see the guy on the ground. Right before starting from 8;26;51 you can see a shadow from the cop. The guy is still standing there like nothing so it's obvious by that and the lack of sound, which you can clearly hear when the cops do start to talk and approach the guy, that there was no type of negotiation or confrontation. The approached and shot plain and simple. It's there on camera with audio and a second by second account.



The caller also watched multiple people walk in and out of the aisle with no issues or threat, although he claimed there was - @ 8;25;44 he claims he pointed it at two children when he didn't even have it raised in the air. And point out where the guy was reloading it like the caller claimed.
 
Didn't we pass a law a while back where all air rifles that look even remotely "assault like" have orange tips? I'm not sure how you miss that...
The orange tip is for toys. An air rifle is a real gun, not a toy.
 
The caller also watched multiple people walk in and out of the aisle with no issues or threat, although he claimed there was - @ 8;25;44 he claims he pointed it at two children when he didn't even have it raised in the air.
How would the cops know that?
 
I wanted to bring this in from the other thread because cj makes some excellent observations:

There's no need to deal in hypotheticals and "what ifs" - we have video evidence of the situation leading up to the shooting available to us. The only narrative is from the 911 caller and even though he falsely claims the suspect was loading the gun he also rightly claims, when the 911 operator asked what he's doing, said "no, he's not doing anything".

And what's so wild about the idea that the suspect went to Walmart to buy a pellet gun and some cat food? Doesn't Walmart sell pellet guns and cat food? It's a far more likely scenario than wild conjecture that the kid was trying to commit suicide by cop. The only thing the suicide by cop diversion does is absolve the officer who killed him from taking responsibility for his hasty actions. And as noted above by another poster, let's not forget that this cowboy justice also led to another innocent person dying from a heart attack.

The store surveillance equipment had the suspect in sight the whole time here. The prudent thing to do would have been for officers to assess the situation while the suspect was inactive, usher all other shoppers and staff out of the store calmly and quietly, and then approach the suspect in a calm and professional manner. Instead, it appears, the officer simply rushed in with execution on his mind determined to fire and take down the suspect without ever ascertaining what was going on.

As I said previously, I'm very supportive of police and other law enforcement but not blindly so. There are bad police. There are incompetent police. There are rogue/cowboy cops. To dismiss the actions of this officer in this incident is foolish, in my view. Along with the privilege and authority of being a police officer, including carrying a weapon and being authorized to use it, come heightened responsibility and heightened judgement. This officer needs to be disciplined for lacking both and perhaps he will be or has been and we don't know it.


Agreed.
 
How would the cops know that?

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.
 
Didn't we pass a law a while back where all air rifles that look even remotely "assault like" have orange tips? I'm not sure how you miss that...

The orange tip is for toy guns; an air gun is not a toy.
 
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.


No, you don't want to start attaching potential criminal liabilities to 911 calls.

Not unless it is a purposefull and blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
 
Back
Top Bottom