Police Kill Man Attempting to "Open Carry" ..wait for it...

[Derec]

This person died from stupid, alright - but it wasn't his stupidity. It was scooter woman and her retired Marine husband who escalated a non-situation to a deadly one with their exaggerations and hysteria, and two cops who didn't properly assess the situation before shooting their weapons.

I would say waving a gun (even if it is a realistic looking potentially lethal pellet gun rather than an actual AR-15) and not dropping it when ordered so by the police qualifies as stupid. That does not mean he deserved to die. It doesn't make him a thug. But it doesn't mean it's racist murder on the part of the police either.

 

[bleubird]

I can not believe I agree with Derec on this.Cats and dogs living together,OMG!

 

[Arctish]

This person died from stupid, alright - but it wasn't his stupidity. It was scooter woman and her retired Marine husband who escalated a non-situation to a deadly one with their exaggerations and hysteria, and two cops who didn't properly assess the situation before shooting their weapons.

I would say waving a gun (even if it is a realistic looking potentially lethal pellet gun rather than an actual AR-15) and not dropping it when ordered so by the police qualifies as stupid. That does not mean he deserved to die. It doesn't make him a thug. But it doesn't mean it's racist murder on the part of the police either.

I would say waving anything dangerous around in a manner that might injure someone is an issue. But considering the pellet gun wasn't loaded and Crawford wasn't waving it around in a manner likely to bash someone in the head, it's quite a stretch to claim Crawford checking the action as he walked through the store and talked on his cell phone was a problem.

Not dropping the gun when ordered to do so is only a stupid choice if it was a conscious one. I see a lot of people assuming Crawford decided he would not comply. I don't think that's the case. I think he was startled at the sudden appearance of aggressive cops and blurted out "It's not real" instinctively. I think instead of being afforded a decent chance to comprehend the situation and comply with the police he was treated like a mass murderer caught in the act. And I think the cops did that because of the reports they received from the couple who called 911 and gave the dispatcher erroneous and highly prejudicial information.

The cops were told to expect a man threatening people with a gun. Crawford was the man, but he wasn't doing anything like threatening people, and the store merchandise he was carrying wasn't the kind of gun that was reported. It was much less than that, more like a package of lawn darts than an AR-15.

 

[Toni]

I would say waving a gun (even if it is a realistic looking potentially lethal pellet gun rather than an actual AR-15) and not dropping it when ordered so by the police qualifies as stupid. That does not mean he deserved to die. It doesn't make him a thug. But it doesn't mean it's racist murder on the part of the police either.

I would say waving anything dangerous around in a manner that might injure someone is an issue. But considering the pellet gun wasn't loaded and Crawford wasn't waving it around in a manner likely to bash someone in the head, it's quite a stretch to claim Crawford checking the action as he walked through the store and talked on his cell phone was a problem.

Not dropping the gun when ordered to do so is only a stupid choice if it was a conscious one. I see a lot of people assuming Crawford decided he would not comply. I don't think that's the case. I think he was startled at the sudden appearance of aggressive cops and blurted out "It's not real" instinctively. I think instead of being afforded a decent chance to comprehend the situation and comply with the police he was treated like a mass murderer caught in the act. And I think the cops did that because of the reports they received from the couple who called 911 and gave the dispatcher erroneous and highly prejudicial information.

The cops were told to expect a man threatening people with a gun. Crawford was the man, but he wasn't doing anything like threatening people, and the store merchandise he was carrying wasn't the kind of gun that was reported. It was much less than that, more like a package of lawn darts than an AR-15.

I agree with your assessment.

The questions remaining are:

1. Did the scooter woman and her husband perceive Crawford to be threatening because of the color of his skin? Would they have been as alarmed if it had been some blonde kid dressed in jeans and a t shirt?

2. Did the police react, in part, because of the color of Crawford's skin? Would they have immediately seen any person of any color holding a bb gun as a threat? Even that blonde kid?

 

[bleubird]

Lawn darts.Really?
A lead projectile at 800 fps not a toy.
http://www.amazon.com/Gamo-Silent-C...8072549&sr=1-3&keywords=1500+fps+pellet+rifle
Oh. sorry 1200 fps.my bad.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Crosman-Phantom-.177-Break-Barrel-Air-Rifle/16536176
Ok.Lead free.

 

[Arctish]

Lawn darts.Really?
A lead projectile at 800 fps not a toy.
http://www.amazon.com/Gamo-Silent-C...8072549&sr=1-3&keywords=1500+fps+pellet+rifle
Oh. sorry 1200 fps.my bad.

Yes, lawn darts.

They were banned for a while but made a comeback when manufacturers agreed they would no longer market them as toys. They became Sporting Goods, just like pellet guns. Over the next decade they sent thousands of kids to the Emergency Room and killed 3, which led to them being banned once again.

Lawn darts kill. A man fiddling with a handful of lawn darts poses more of a threat than one fiddling with an unloaded pellet gun, since the gun has to be loaded and charged with compressed air to be truly dangerous but the darts are lethal "as is". If you can't see how checking out the lawn darts is dangerous business, maybe you'll understand why I can't see how checking out an unloaded pellet gun is something that merits the use of deadly force, or why Crawford was "stupid" for not realizing it.

 

[laughing dog]

Come on.People die every day because they do stupid things. Did he not know that having a gun in a mall could be a problem?

I'll wager a lot more people do not die because they do stupid things than do die from doing stupid things.

 

[beero1000]

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates.html andwww.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/nonfatal/datasources.htm) and the CPSC,¹² in 2000 the overall nonfatal age-adjusted rate of injury from BB or pellet guns was 7.71 per 100000 population. In 2000, there were an estimated 21840 (coefficient of variation: 0.0821) nonpowder gun–related injuries treated in emergency departments (D. Tinsworth, MS, CPSC, written communication, November 26, 2001).

...

Thoracic injuries were associated with high morbidity and mortality when penetration of the chest wall occurred. Abdominal wounds were frequently associated with visceral injury and multiple perforations, usually of the small bowel. Peritoneal penetration was associated with a more than 80% chance of visceral injury. Transtracheal and brain injuries were also reported. These authors warn that the wound itself may seem trivial, but if not appreciated for their potential for tissue disruption, nonpowder gun injuries to the head, chest, and abdomen may have catastrophic results. They also note that the pellets from air guns have a propensity to embolize if the missile enters a blood vessel or the heart. The light weight of air gun pellets allows the missile to be swept by the blood flow more readily than heavier, higher-energy projectiles. Friedman et al⁷report that the potential seriousness of pneumatic weapon injury is frequently underestimated. These authors concluded that injuries from air guns should be treated in a manner similar to those from low-velocity powder firearms.

...

Bhattacharyya et al¹⁷ reported on 42 children admitted to a level I pediatric trauma center for air-gun injuries over a 7-year period (1988-1995). They had a mean hospital stay of 7 days (range: 1-136 days) and a mean injury severity score of 8.3. Half of the children underwent operative procedures, and 38% had serious long-term disability. They concluded that these guns are not toys but are weapons, and injuries related to their use should be evaluated and managed in a similar fashion to powder-weapon injuries. These findings were similar to those of Walsh et al.¹⁸

...

Before 1972, only 2 nonpowder gun–related fatalities were reported in the literature. However, between 1972 and 1982, the decade after the introduction of high-powered air rifles, 10 more fatalities were recorded by the CPSC.¹⁰ The number of deaths per year has increased since then. From 1990 to 2000, the CPSC reported 39 nonpowder gun–related deaths, of which 32 were children younger than 15 years, with an average of 4 deaths per year.¹¹ The highest number of deaths occurred in 1989, 1990, and 1991.¹⁵ The trends in nonpowder gun fatalities and nonfatal injuries parallel the epidemic of firearm-related injuries and deaths of the past 2 decades.³⁴

...

• Nonpowder guns (BB guns, pellet guns, air rifles, paintball guns) are weapons and should never be characterized as toys.

Lawn darts, right.

 

[Arctish]

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates.html andwww.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/nonfatal/datasources.htm) and the CPSC,¹² in 2000 the overall nonfatal age-adjusted rate of injury from BB or pellet guns was 7.71 per 100000 population. In 2000, there were an estimated 21840 (coefficient of variation: 0.0821) nonpowder gun–related injuries treated in emergency departments (D. Tinsworth, MS, CPSC, written communication, November 26, 2001).

...

Thoracic injuries were associated with high morbidity and mortality when penetration of the chest wall occurred. Abdominal wounds were frequently associated with visceral injury and multiple perforations, usually of the small bowel. Peritoneal penetration was associated with a more than 80% chance of visceral injury. Transtracheal and brain injuries were also reported. These authors warn that the wound itself may seem trivial, but if not appreciated for their potential for tissue disruption, nonpowder gun injuries to the head, chest, and abdomen may have catastrophic results. They also note that the pellets from air guns have a propensity to embolize if the missile enters a blood vessel or the heart. The light weight of air gun pellets allows the missile to be swept by the blood flow more readily than heavier, higher-energy projectiles. Friedman et al⁷report that the potential seriousness of pneumatic weapon injury is frequently underestimated. These authors concluded that injuries from air guns should be treated in a manner similar to those from low-velocity powder firearms.

...

Bhattacharyya et al¹⁷ reported on 42 children admitted to a level I pediatric trauma center for air-gun injuries over a 7-year period (1988-1995). They had a mean hospital stay of 7 days (range: 1-136 days) and a mean injury severity score of 8.3. Half of the children underwent operative procedures, and 38% had serious long-term disability. They concluded that these guns are not toys but are weapons, and injuries related to their use should be evaluated and managed in a similar fashion to powder-weapon injuries. These findings were similar to those of Walsh et al.¹⁸

...

Before 1972, only 2 nonpowder gun–related fatalities were reported in the literature. However, between 1972 and 1982, the decade after the introduction of high-powered air rifles, 10 more fatalities were recorded by the CPSC.¹⁰ The number of deaths per year has increased since then. From 1990 to 2000, the CPSC reported 39 nonpowder gun–related deaths, of which 32 were children younger than 15 years, with an average of 4 deaths per year.¹¹ The highest number of deaths occurred in 1989, 1990, and 1991.¹⁵ The trends in nonpowder gun fatalities and nonfatal injuries parallel the epidemic of firearm-related injuries and deaths of the past 2 decades.³⁴

...

• Nonpowder guns (BB guns, pellet guns, air rifles, paintball guns) are weapons and should never be characterized as toys.

Lawn darts, right.

I had no idea pellet guns had become so dangerous. Thirty nine fatal injuries over a 10 year span? I remember pellet guns that could shoot your eye out if you weren't careful, but weren't nearly as dangerous as lawn darts - those things could kill you. Come to think of it, late 60s-early 70s is about the time my Dad bought the one my sibling and I used to shoot at paper targets.

Sounds like pellet guns should be bumped up from Sporting Goods into the Firearms category.

Still, the point remains that Crawford wasn't threatening anyone, or likely to harm anyone, by checking out that pellet gun as he walked through the store talking on his cell phone. The stupidity in this case came largely from the couple who reported a danger that did not exist outside their imaginations.

 

[beero1000]

Lawn darts, right.

I had no idea pellet guns had become so dangerous. Thirty nine fatal injuries over a 10 year span? I remember pellet guns that could shoot your eye out if you weren't careful, but weren't nearly as dangerous as lawn darts - those things could kill you. Come to think of it, late 60s-early 70s is about the time my Dad bought the one my sibling and I used to shoot at paper targets.

Sounds like pellet guns should be bumped up from Sporting Goods into the Real Gun category.

Yup. The gun in question fires pellets more than three times faster than older style BB guns. Energy goes up with the square of velocity, so it has more than 10 times the oomph of the air guns you remember. Some air guns even fire supersonic pellets. You need ear protection for those. They are serious business.

 

[Deepak]

Yes it is.


This is what we used to call a "bb gun." Something you might - if you handled it irresponsibly - be able to use to cause an injury.

Deadly weapon? Not even close.

An air rifle is to an actual rifle what a ten speed bike is to a Harley.


Unless of course a black man unpacks one in Wal Mart...then it becomes a "deadly weapon being brandished about by a mad man."

It isn't. Modern pellet guns (not the same as BB gun) fire .177 pellets at muzzle velocities more than 3-4 times the dinky BB guns you are probably thinking of. They are significantly closer to a .22 rifle than to the air rifle in A Christmas Story.

That isn't to say the shooting was justified, just that the 'it was a TOY' reaction is nonsense.

Not even close - these sorts of air rifles produce about 10 ft/lb of muzzle energy and an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle produces about half that. Whereas a 22lr is about an order of magnitude higher than that. Hell my 22lr pistol probably produces 6-7x more muzzle energy. I don't know where you got this information but you're sorely misinformed.

This specific model isn't even rated by Crosman for hunting squirrels. It's a far cry from a survival air rifle like Gamo Bone Collector.

Walmart was full of customers at the time of the incident. Only two people, apparently husband and wife, found Crawford to be threatening.

Why did they find him to be threatening?

How do we know that he didn't simply find the bb gun on the floor of the toy aisle and pick it up to see whether it was real or a toy?

This is the critical point in the story. No one else in the store found Crawford's behavior to be threatening. In fact the moron who called the police was stalking Crawford with his injured and scooter-bound wife.

That doesn't strike me as the actions of a man reacting to someone brandishing or waving a gun at people.

 

[beero1000]

It isn't. Modern pellet guns (not the same as BB gun) fire .177 pellets at muzzle velocities more than 3-4 times the dinky BB guns you are probably thinking of. They are significantly closer to a .22 rifle than to the air rifle in A Christmas Story.

That isn't to say the shooting was justified, just that the 'it was a TOY' reaction is nonsense.

Not even close - these sorts of air rifles produce about 10 ft/lb of muzzle energy and an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle produces about half that. Whereas a 22lr is about an order of magnitude higher than that. Hell my 22lr pistol probably produces 6-7x more muzzle energy. I don't know where you got this information but you're sorely misinformed.

This specific model isn't even rated by Crosman for hunting squirrels. It's a far cry from a survival air rifle like Gamo Bone Collector.

The Crosman shoots an 8 gr pellet at 750 fps for a muzzle energy of 10 ft-lbs. The old Red Ryder shoots a 5 gr BB at 240 fps for a muzzle energy of 0.6 ft-lbs. Sure, a .22 might have a muzzle energy of 100 ft-lbs but damage isn't necessarily proportional to muzzle energy. There is a threshold energy for intercranial, interabdominal, etc penetration, after which you'll be in trouble.

What is indisputable is that from the 30's to the 70's when airguns like the Red Ryder were popular, people didn't die from BB guns. When higher energy air guns showed up, they started causing injuries similar to firearm wounds and people started dying. It went from 'you'll put your eye out' to 'it'll penetrate your skull and cause brain damage' or 'it'll go through your chest and pierce your heart' (those both happen). Sure, a pellet won't blow your head off like a high-energy powder round will, but however they perform like underpowered firearms, the misperception of them as toys remains.

 

[bigfield]

The questions remaining are:

1. Did the scooter woman and her husband perceive Crawford to be threatening because of the color of his skin? Would they have been as alarmed if it had been some blonde kid dressed in jeans and a t shirt?

2. Did the police react, in part, because of the color of Crawford's skin? Would they have immediately seen any person of any color holding a bb gun as a threat? Even that blonde kid?

Considering that:
1. Police often profile people based on race,
2. The public also often racially profile based on race,
Then the answer to your questions has to be "maybe".

One would need to know more about the scooter woman, her husband, and the officers in order to be more certain.

 

[Deepak]

The questions remaining are:

1. Did the scooter woman and her husband perceive Crawford to be threatening because of the color of his skin? Would they have been as alarmed if it had been some blonde kid dressed in jeans and a t shirt?

2. Did the police react, in part, because of the color of Crawford's skin? Would they have immediately seen any person of any color holding a bb gun as a threat? Even that blonde kid?

Considering that:
1. Police often profile people based on race,
2. The public also often racially profile based on race,
Then the answer to your questions has to be "maybe".

One would need to know more about the scooter woman, her husband, and the officers in order to be more certain.

I think it's safe to conclude that the scooter is racist.

 

[George S]

I would say waving anything dangerous around in a manner that might injure someone is an issue. But considering the pellet gun wasn't loaded and Crawford wasn't waving it around in a manner likely to bash someone in the head, it's quite a stretch to claim Crawford checking the action as he walked through the store and talked on his cell phone was a problem.

Not dropping the gun when ordered to do so is only a stupid choice if it was a conscious one. I see a lot of people assuming Crawford decided he would not comply. I don't think that's the case. I think he was startled at the sudden appearance of aggressive cops and blurted out "It's not real" instinctively. I think instead of being afforded a decent chance to comprehend the situation and comply with the police he was treated like a mass murderer caught in the act. And I think the cops did that because of the reports they received from the couple who called 911 and gave the dispatcher erroneous and highly prejudicial information.

The cops were told to expect a man threatening people with a gun. Crawford was the man, but he wasn't doing anything like threatening people, and the store merchandise he was carrying wasn't the kind of gun that was reported. It was much less than that, more like a package of lawn darts than an AR-15.

I agree with your assessment.

The questions remaining are:

1. Did the scooter woman and her husband perceive Crawford to be threatening because of the color of his skin? Would they have been as alarmed if it had been some blonde kid dressed in jeans and a t shirt?

2. Did the police react, in part, because of the color of Crawford's skin? Would they have immediately seen any person of any color holding a bb gun as a threat? Even that blonde kid?

I agree with the original assessment.

Your questions are racist questions. The color of his skin is what it is. The color of my skin is what it is. We are not color blind. But any given person, I hope you agree, should be judged as a package. Not by the color of his skin alone. Not by the length of his hair alone. Not by what he wears alone. Not by what he says and does alone. Not by who he is with alone. Not prejudged by any of these alone.

I do not know the races of the scooter woman and her husband. I do not know the race of the policeman. I don't know if Crawford was as black as my freshman roommate from Nigeria or as light as Derek Jeter, or was from Jamaica.

Race is a component of judging other people. A psychological truth is that we like people who are like us. We distrust people who are not like us instinctively.

People who are religious like people of their religion. People who are atheist like other atheists. People who dress well like others who dress well.

Don't ignore race, of course, but don't dwell on it. Don't stretch those racist pants to fit.

 

[Deepak]

I agree with your assessment.

The questions remaining are:

1. Did the scooter woman and her husband perceive Crawford to be threatening because of the color of his skin? Would they have been as alarmed if it had been some blonde kid dressed in jeans and a t shirt?

2. Did the police react, in part, because of the color of Crawford's skin? Would they have immediately seen any person of any color holding a bb gun as a threat? Even that blonde kid?

I agree with the original assessment.

Your questions are racist questions. The color of his skin is what it is. The color of my skin is what it is. We are not color blind. But any given person, I hope you agree, should be judged as a package. Not by the color of his skin alone. Not by the length of his hair alone. Not by what he wears alone. Not by what he says and does alone. Not by who he is with alone. Not prejudged by any of these alone.

I do not know the races of the scooter woman and her husband. I do not know the race of the policeman. I don't know if Crawford was as black as my freshman roommate from Nigeria or as light as Derek Jeter, or was from Jamaica.

Race is a component of judging other people. A psychological truth is that we like people who are like us. We distrust people who are not like us instinctively.

People who are religious like people of their religion. People who are atheist like other atheists. People who dress well like others who dress well.

Don't ignore race, of course, but don't dwell on it. Don't stretch those racist pants to fit.

This is silly - there's nothing racist about asking the questions that Toni asked. Attempting to determine whether race was a, or the, motivating factor in the 911 call is not racism by any common definition of the word.

 

[Malintent]

"Shopping while black." Now a Class-A felony.

are you saying that "being black" implies "waving a BB gun rifle around"? That is racist of you to just assume one from the other.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would say waving anything dangerous around in a manner that might injure someone is an issue. But considering the pellet gun wasn't loaded and Crawford wasn't waving it around in a manner likely to bash someone in the head, it's quite a stretch to claim Crawford checking the action as he walked through the store and talked on his cell phone was a problem.

Not dropping the gun when ordered to do so is only a stupid choice if it was a conscious one. I see a lot of people assuming Crawford decided he would not comply. I don't think that's the case. I think he was startled at the sudden appearance of aggressive cops and blurted out "It's not real" instinctively. I think instead of being afforded a decent chance to comprehend the situation and comply with the police he was treated like a mass murderer caught in the act. And I think the cops did that because of the reports they received from the couple who called 911 and gave the dispatcher erroneous and highly prejudicial information.

The cops were told to expect a man threatening people with a gun. Crawford was the man, but he wasn't doing anything like threatening people, and the store merchandise he was carrying wasn't the kind of gun that was reported. It was much less than that, more like a package of lawn darts than an AR-15.

I agree with your assessment.

The questions remaining are:

1. Did the scooter woman and her husband perceive Crawford to be threatening because of the color of his skin? Would they have been as alarmed if it had been some blonde kid dressed in jeans and a t shirt?

2. Did the police react, in part, because of the color of Crawford's skin? Would they have immediately seen any person of any color holding a bb gun as a threat? Even that blonde kid?

Both of you are dead wrong. Please tell me how a cop is supposed to know it's a pellet gun. Or that it's not loaded. Did they start installing Star Trek style scanners in police officers? Or start training them in some newly verified form of ESP? An action is right or wrong when it is taken, not when the results are known. From the perspective of the officer, he saw a guy with an assault rifle in a crowded Walmart, and the guy refused to drop it. That's all there is to it. It's an argument against open carry of assault rifles and a great argument against the open sale and carry of anything that looks like one.

 

[PyramidHead]

Both of you are dead wrong. Please tell me how a cop is supposed to know it's a pellet gun. Or that it's not loaded. Did they start installing Star Trek style scanners in police officers? Or start training them in some newly verified form of ESP?

Ignorance is not an excuse for rash decision-making. There are a million ways the police could have acted in accordance with the uncertainty about what type of weapon he had, without gunning him down.

An action is right or wrong when it is taken, not when the results are known. From the perspective of the officer, he saw a guy with an assault rifle in a crowded Walmart, and the guy refused to drop it. That's all there is to it.

In the state where this took place, there is nothing illegal about openly carrying an assault rifle in a crowded Walmart. The police officer should have taken that fact into account.

It's an argument against open carry of assault rifles and a great argument against the open sale and carry of anything that looks like one.

I agree. But both of these behaviors are currently 100% legal in Ohio. The job of law enforcement must be related in some way to the actual law. Thus, I don't think your dismissal of Toni's questions is justified.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ignorance is not an excuse for rash decision-making. There are a million ways the police could have acted in accordance with the uncertainty about what type of weapon he had, without gunning him down.

An action is right or wrong when it is taken, not when the results are known. From the perspective of the officer, he saw a guy with an assault rifle in a crowded Walmart, and the guy refused to drop it. That's all there is to it.

In the state where this took place, there is nothing illegal about openly carrying an assault rifle in a crowded Walmart. The police officer should have taken that fact into account.

It's an argument against open carry of assault rifles and a great argument against the open sale and carry of anything that looks like one.

I agree. But both of these behaviors are currently 100% legal in Ohio. The job of law enforcement must be related in some way to the actual law. Thus, I don't think your dismissal of Toni's questions is justified.

You seem to have a very strange and contradictory definition of what constitutes rash decision making. Decisions are made based on an evaluation of information. The information that a man was holding a gun, ready to fire, in a crowded venue, the right decision is to tell someone to drop it, and if they don't, shoot them.

There is nothing 'rash' about acting on information. 'Rash' is hearing someone knock on your door and immediately opening it only long enough to shoot their face off. Rash is slitting a dog's throat because you feel threatened. Pulling out a gun and shooting a kid as he is running away, or chasing someone because they're wearing a hoodie.

Being ignorant about something like whether a thing is a prop or a weapon, the fault lies on the source of the ignorance. In this case, manufacturers of gun toys.