It's a fact. High power pellet guns like this one are certainly not toys. Note the lack of the orange tip that indicates that something is a toy gun.
In fact, the pellet gun is often referred to as a toy in the media.
And that particular media got it wrong. They had also sometimes claimed he picked it up in the toy section which also turned out to be wrong.
I can forgive initial confusion and inaccuracies, but the only media that I see that still counterfactually insist that it was a "toy" are biased opinion pieces that want to make the cops appear as bad as possible.
You should broaden your horizons, then. And realize that sometimes cops behave pretty badly and it is actually the media's job to report just that.
In the cnn video, the official discussing the case shows two guns, one 'real as he asserts, and the other the one that Crawford was holding. Even the officials in the case do not identify the pellet gun as a 'real' gun.
Neither did he identify it as a toy, because it isn't one.
Well, we know it isn't an imaginary gun because it is clearly shown on the video. So, if it isn't a real gun and it isn't an imaginary one, what other kind of gun remains? Hint: it begins with the letter between S and U in the English alphabet.
So give it up, Derec. Just give it up already.
No, you give up.
Fine. Stick to your guns.
As for it being 'possibly lethal'--I suppose it is possible that someone could have broken parts of the plastic off of the unloaded, empty pellet gun and come up with a piece of plastic sharp and hard enough to be lethal if it was used to, say, stab someone in the neck, say, in the carotid artery, much the same way that the pen sitting on the desk next to me as I type this could be a lethal weapon if used in just that way.
Very funny, but sadly no. It can be lethal used normally, as the case of a 12 year old teen girl shot by a pellet gun and dying demonstrates. Even if you do not die it has enough penetrating power to pierce the skin. It is not a toy. Do I need to break out the "news for the hard of hearing" again?
A twelve year old is not a teen, for starters. Also this is the internet: I am reading, not hearing anything. I do suggest you try taking a sensitivity class and become better informed about the intellectual capabilities of those who are hearing impaired. Your remarks were ill informed and bigoted.
In the meantime, should I list all of the toys which have killed children but are still considered toys?
So go ahead and pretend all you want that he was doing something outrageous and dangerous and worst of all, not instantly compliant when set upon unexpectedly by armed police officers, the first one of which I would not have realized was a police officer from the video if I didn't already know it.
Well, he was doing something dangerous, as far as anybody else could tell. You do not wave a weapon around like that.
He was absentmindedly gesturing with the hand which was holding an unloaded pellet gun--something he thought of as a toy-- which he had picked up from a shelf (unwrapped by someone else--not by Crawford as you insisted so many times!) in a store where he was shopping. He obviously did not consider what he was holding to be a weapon or to be dangerous.
We saw other shoppers walk right past him, showing no alarm or concern. So plenty of people could see that he wasn't doing anything dangerous. The only people who were confused about that were someone who lied about being an ex-Marine and his wife. And the officers who were told they were responding to an active shooter. No one else is even walking fast, looking back at him or doing anything that indicates even a tiny bit of concern or fear.
The man didn't even have a chance to understand what was happening. He was shocked, confused enough that he went back, perhaps thinking that there was some crazy guys shooting up the store.
Perhaps. But put yourself in the position of the police.
The police were heavily armed and ready to kill, having been grossly misinformed by someone who also misled them about his own experience and expertise with firearms. Being heavily armed, they had an absolute duty to be informed as to the situation they were walking into, for their own safety and for the safety of standers by. This was a WALMART for fucks sake! There were lots of people around! Two of whom died--two completely INNOCENT people! as a result of their actions and the claims of an incompetent liar who exaggerated his own expertise and knowledge, not to mention completely misrepresented the situation.
I am which putting myself in the position of the police is why I suggest they be given more and better training. They shot someone dead on another person's say so. As it turned out, that person was a liar who seems to have a hero complex: he was going to save Walmart from the heavily armed dangerous big bad black man! Just like he was going to join the marines but lacked the integrity or the organizational skills to pull that off.
Well, there were guys shooting up the store; they were sent there on the word of a racist liar
What evidence do you have that Ritchie was "racist" or a "liar"?
He lied about being an ex-Marine. He misrepresented his own familiarity with and expertise with firearms. Two people died as a result. Two people who were DOING NOTHING WRONG. Racist is an easy conclusion to draw since no one else: not one other person in the video--all of whom were white, btw, appeared the least bit concerned and they were walking right past him.
I would think you would be much more upset by this actually. Think about it: now women everywhere have a completely legal way to dispose of their unwanted husbands and boyfriends and other men in their lives: Call 911 and claim that the man they want gone is waving a loaded weapon around, pointing at kids in a Walmart!
If that happened, I am sure we'd hear about it for years, in every single thread where the word 'woman' appeared.
Ritchie should be indicted.
For what crime? Citizens are not required to investigate before calling 911.
Citizens are not allowed to make false police reports, especially when their actions can reasonably be predicted to lead to someone else's death. What did he think was going to happen? OF COURSE a SWAT team arrived, ready to shoot!
Ritchie LIED about being an ex-Marine, he LIED about Crawford being threatening. He LIED about his own expertise and familiarity with weapons. Two people died because Ritchie LIED to the police. I believe lying to the police is not legal and
That said, I would like to point out that SWAT teams CAN be trained to assess and respond appropriately. A family member was held hostage in his own home, with a weapon on him for hours. Multiple SWAT teams arrived and managed to rescue the family member without shooting the person holding him, and indeed, without firing a single shot. This was in a private residence where the only two people in the line of fire were the hostage and the person holding him hostage. Contrast this with the scene in the Walmart with many other shoppers, including CHILDREN--lots of other potential victims of any crossfire or misfire were present.
I hope the family sues for wrongful death and I hope Ritchie is indicted.
Even if they had grounds he doesn't have deep enough pockets to be worthwhile to the family shysters. I suspect they will sue the city and Walmart.
He does seem kind of judgment proof and likely to remain so given his demonstrated level of competence, but they could still garnishee his wages for the rest of his pathetic life. They should sue the city and the police department. Remedy should include extensive training of the police force in the appropriate use of deadly force.
What kind of training would have prevented this? It's a bad confluence of events. Crawford meant to harm I believe but acted in a way that police perceived as threatening in the split second they had to react.
Crawford meant to harm? I think that must be a typo or perhaps a Freudian slip. Obviously, Crawford mean
no harm and had no idea he was perceived as a threat by ANYONE. Because he was walking around a Walmart, talking to his ex.
What split second did they have to react? He wasn't pointing a gun at anyone when they came upon him! At least some don't even hear the order to drop the weapon (which Crawford didn't regard as a weapon) before they began shooting.
This was completely unjustifiable. I doubt that if Crawford were white, they would have been so quick to perceive him as a threat or as quick to shoot.
