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

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm good with that idea

 

[bilby]

He was handling it like one would handle a toy, not like one would handle a real gun.

He also swung towards the officer rather than dropping it when challenged.

Personally, if I saw something like that lying in a Walmart shelf, not in a box, I would not think it was a real gun.

But the cops didn't see it sitting on a shelf. They saw it in his hand.

But as ZiprHead points out above, this is an open carry state - even if he had had a real gun, what he was doing would have been perfectly legal.

The law in Ohio is quite clear; openly carrying a firearm is not cause for the police to act at all, much less to shoot someone dead. The police shouldn't have intervened at all unless he shot someone - or at the very least threatened to shoot someone. At no time did he do any such thing.

You don't go swinging a gun around even in an open carry state. You can carry it slung (as you usually see in the protests) or you can carry it in a proper carry position. You do not play with it!

http://www.usacarry.com/brandishing-firearm/

Well, I just quickly flicked through chapter 2923 of the Ohio code, and I can see a load of stuff in there regulating Concealed Carry, and stuff about specific rules for schools and courthouses; but nowhere in there did I find any mention of how one is permitted to handle your firearm when open carrying; You may not threaten someone, nor may you conceal your firearm (unless licensed to do so). Beyond that, the law is silent. There is no requirement to carry it in a particular position, or to sling or holster it.

Playing with a loaded gun is stupid, but not (in Ohio) illegal; The police would have been justified in politely asking Crawford to carry his gun with care, so as to avoid any possible accidental discharge of the weapon. How this can be mistaken for their being justified in shooting him dead on sight is beyond me.

Personally I think open carry laws are pretty dumb; But if you have them, then you have to accept people openly carrying, and police need to understand that doing so is lawful behaviour that does not justify so much as a comment, much less homicide.

 

[Mumbles]

That's not good enough.

And, frankly, I don't see it. What I *do* see, is one or more cops just rushing in and firing on a man who was holding a BB gun. The man who was shot then runs around in a panic, and then the police kill him.

If events happened as the videotape shows, then the police are murderers.

I do agree he ran around in a panic. He knew it wasn't real. The problem is that it looked real, the cops didn't know. They had a report of a man waving a gun around, the saw a man with a gun, when challenged he swung it in their direction. (Yes, I realize he was just looking at the challenger, the motion wasn't intentional.)

The fundamental problem is when you don't treat a realistic weapon as real someone might feel you are threatening them.

Congratulations, you have just described a murder.

Ohio's an open Carry state, the victim was making no attempt to use force, the police ran in and shot him, without giving him time to respond to anything.

There's a story, at my old office. At some point, a satellite was being lifted, at another company. At some point, this satellite was dropped. Keep in mind, the thing was worth about $600,000,000. When the company people met with their clients, they gave a presentation. The first slide was, of course, the introduction. The second slide was an org chart, with a bright red X over the name and face of everyone who had lost their job because of the incident. And that is for an object. An expensive object, sure, but an object.

A human life is more than that.

You can't come back from "well, we saw a guy with what appeared to be a gun, and he never pointed it at anyone, so we shot and killed him." If they're still police, then that speaks extremely badly for the police that they are with.

 

[Arctish]

What strikes me most about the defense of the police is the assumption that the cops were right to have gone charging down the aisles of WalMart looking for an active threat instead of quickly and quietly searching the store, locating the reported gunman, and seizing the opportunity to clear the area of bystanders before alerting the possible crazy gunman of their presence.

Doesn't it make more sense to use the store's security system to locate the guy, especially since shots had not been fired and none of the other shoppers appeared to be alarmed? Haven't they heard of swatting? The cops didn't even try to asses the situation when that should have been the first thing they did, not charging down the aisles to engage in a gun battle.

 

[Mumbles]

What strikes me most about the defense of the police is the assumption that the cops should have gone charging down the aisles of WalMart looking for an active threat instead of quickly and quietly searching the store, locating the reported gunman, and seizing the opportunity to clear the area of bystanders before alerting the possible crazy gunman of their presence.

Doesn't it make more sense to use the store's security system to locate the guy, especially since shots had not been fired and none of the other shoppers appeared to be alarmed? Haven't they heard of swatting? The cops didn't even try to asses the threat, and that should have been their first step, not charging down the aisles to engage in a gun battle.

You missed it.

In this case, the police *were* the crazy gunmen.

 

[Deepak]

That's not good enough.

And, frankly, I don't see it. What I *do* see, is one or more cops just rushing in and firing on a man who was holding a BB gun. The man who was shot then runs around in a panic, and then the police kill him.

If events happened as the videotape shows, then the police are murderers.

I do agree he ran around in a panic. He knew it wasn't real. The problem is that it looked real, the cops didn't know. They had a report of a man waving a gun around, the saw a man with a gun, when challenged he swung it in their direction. (Yes, I realize he was just looking at the challenger, the motion wasn't intentional.)

The fundamental problem is when you don't treat a realistic weapon as real someone might feel you are threatening them.

Would you be able to provide a screenshot of Crawford pointing the BB gun in their direction? Because I didn't see it. It seemed to me that he was holding it idly by is side when they shot at him, and prior to that pointing it at an aisle full of dog food with his hand nowhere near the trigger.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

An automatic weapon places it's *FIRST* round just as accurately as one that is not automatic. It's only later rounds that are less accurate and tend to climb into the sky if you don't have enough control of your weapon.

It can only place its first found accurately if the shooter actually aims the weapon, i.e. by bringing it up to his shoulder and holding it two-handed. Crawford didn't aim the BB gun at all.

He was shot while it was coming up.

I do agree that this wasn't actually an attempt to shoot but rather carelessness--he didn't think about the how others would interpret his actions because he knew it wasn't a real weapon.

Look at it from the standpoint of the cop, though (which is how you always have to evaluate self-defense shootings--what did the shooter know, you don't get whole picture.) He has a report of a guy pointing a gun at people. He comes in, sees a guy handling a gun carelessly and challenges him. The person swings the gun towards the cop. To wait and see what he would do would mean a dead cop if the threat was real.

That's why I say the real problem is handling a replica gun like a toy. If you have something that others will think is a real gun you should handle it like it is a real gun and take no actions that others will feel threatened by.

- - - Updated - - -

He was handling it like one would handle a toy, not like one would handle a real gun.

He also swung towards the officer rather than dropping it when challenged.

Personally, if I saw something like that lying in a Walmart shelf, not in a box, I would not think it was a real gun.

But the cops didn't see it sitting on a shelf. They saw it in his hand.

But as ZiprHead points out above, this is an open carry state - even if he had had a real gun, what he was doing would have been perfectly legal.

The law in Ohio is quite clear; openly carrying a firearm is not cause for the police to act at all, much less to shoot someone dead. The police shouldn't have intervened at all unless he shot someone - or at the very least threatened to shoot someone. At no time did he do any such thing.

You don't go swinging a gun around even in an open carry state. You can carry it slung (as you usually see in the protests) or you can carry it in a proper carry position. You do not play with it!

http://www.usacarry.com/brandishing-firearm/

YOU might not, but nearly every photo of the "open carry" nut bags shows at least one of them swinging their REAL guns around no differently that Crawford was doing with a toy gun.

Are you suggesting that it would be acceptable to shoot and kill the "open carry" nut bags too?

Huh? Swinging their guns around? I recall no such photos.

I see lots of guns on the back. I see occasional long guns in a two-handed carry and pointed in a reasonably safe direction.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Look at it from the standpoint of the cop, though (which is how you always have to evaluate self-defense shootings--what did the shooter know, you don't get whole picture.) He has a report of a guy pointing a gun at people. He comes in, sees a guy handling a gun carelessly and challenges him. The person swings the gun towards the cop. To wait and see what he would do would mean a dead cop if the threat was real.

Then perhaps the cop should have put himself at a distant, defensible position. Regardless of the 911 call, it is still the police officer's responsibility to assess the situation before taking lethal action. It's not like no one has ever reported a fake gun as a real one.

- - - Updated - - -

Look at it from the standpoint of the cop, though (which is how you always have to evaluate self-defense shootings--what did the shooter know, you don't get whole picture.) He has a report of a guy pointing a gun at people. He comes in, sees a guy handling a gun carelessly and challenges him. The person swings the gun towards the cop. To wait and see what he would do would mean a dead cop if the threat was real.

Then perhaps the cop should have put himself at a distant, defensible position. Regardless of the 911 call, it is still the police officer's responsibility to assess the situation before taking lethal action. It's not like no one has ever reported a fake gun as a real one.

 

[Sabine Grant]

It can only place its first found accurately if the shooter actually aims the weapon, i.e. by bringing it up to his shoulder and holding it two-handed. Crawford didn't aim the BB gun at all.

He was shot while it was coming up.

Non, Loren. He was shot because the intervening cops relied on the 911 caller description which we all should know by now was a misrepresentation of the actual demeanor of the victim while in the store. Those cops showed up with a preset threat assessment they would be dealing with an armed and dangerous individual allegedly "pointing his gun to customers" We know it was NEVER true. It took one paranoid caller to set the stage for the tragedy which ensued. It is a tragedy that the life of an innocent human being who had no criminal intention whatsoever was terminated.

I do agree that this wasn't actually an attempt to shoot but rather carelessness--he didn't think about the how others would interpret his actions because he knew it wasn't a real weapon.

Why should he have even thought that there would be some paranoid person who would call 911 on him, misportraying him as "pointing a gun to customers" and triggering a police intervention resulting in his being fatally shot? Think about it from the get go, Loren. Instead of attempting to normalize a tragedy which was the product of a series of events which were WRONGLY interpreted first by the caller and then last by the cops.

Look at it from the standpoint of the cop, though (which is how you always have to evaluate self-defense shootings--what did the shooter know, you don't get whole picture.) He has a report of a guy pointing a gun at people. He comes in, sees a guy handling a gun carelessly and challenges him. The person swings the gun towards the cop.

Shooting first and asking questions later. That type of reasoning is quite illustrative of a "Wild West" mentality which obviously also affects the police force.

To wait and see what he would do would mean a dead cop if the threat was real.

You do not seem to understand that law enforcement officers are expected to assess accurately threats rather than be trigger easy. You mean that none of those LEOs could identify the said "gun" as a BB gun? How many innocent human beings' lives are to be terminated or be wounded because of one cop or several assuming they are dealing with an individual armed and dangerous? Shoot first and ask questions later, once more.

That's why I say the real problem is handling a replica gun like a toy. If you have something that others will think is a real gun you should handle it like it is a real gun and take no actions that others will feel threatened by.

Again, you mean to tell me that the involved cops somehow had no training enabling them to make the difference between a toy gun and a loaded weapon? Is it really the responsibility of civilians to compensate for Law Enforcement Officers being that untrained to the point of not being able to distinguish between a loaded weapon ready to fire at them and a BB gun? If that is the case, it is quite alarming to live in a nation where your Law Enforcement bodies are somehow void of an absolutely necessary training especially as it is part of threat assessment.

He was handling it like one would handle a toy, not like one would handle a real gun.

He also swung towards the officer rather than dropping it when challenged.

Personally, if I saw something like that lying in a Walmart shelf, not in a box, I would not think it was a real gun.

But the cops didn't see it sitting on a shelf. They saw it in his hand.

But as ZiprHead points out above, this is an open carry state - even if he had had a real gun, what he was doing would have been perfectly legal.

The law in Ohio is quite clear; openly carrying a firearm is not cause for the police to act at all, much less to shoot someone dead. The police shouldn't have intervened at all unless he shot someone - or at the very least threatened to shoot someone. At no time did he do any such thing.

You don't go swinging a gun around even in an open carry state. You can carry it slung (as you usually see in the protests) or you can carry it in a proper carry position. You do not play with it!

http://www.usacarry.com/brandishing-firearm/

YOU might not, but nearly every photo of the "open carry" nut bags shows at least one of them swinging their REAL guns around no differently that Crawford was doing with a toy gun.

Are you suggesting that it would be acceptable to shoot and kill the "open carry" nut bags too?

Huh? Swinging their guns around? I recall no such photos.

I see lots of guns on the back. I see occasional long guns in a two-handed carry and pointed in a reasonably safe direction.

hmmm...such as this fellow on slide number 6,

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nevada-range-war-20140425-story.html#page=1

while he is "John Logan of Waco, Texas, stands at his sentry post outside Cliven Bundy's ranch" with self declared intention from the entire Bundy Bunch to shoot at Federal Agents? Oh...but he is smiling. That should mean something in terms of threat assessment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then perhaps the cop should have put himself at a distant, defensible position. Regardless of the 911 call, it is still the police officer's responsibility to assess the situation before taking lethal action. It's not like no one has ever reported a fake gun as a real one.

Where?

Then perhaps the cop should have put himself at a distant, defensible position. Regardless of the 911 call, it is still the police officer's responsibility to assess the situation before taking lethal action. It's not like no one has ever reported a fake gun as a real one.

You realize that in that situation even a civilian is under no requirement to retreat? (Although a civilian would have been wrong in entering the situation in the first place.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Huh? Swinging their guns around? I recall no such photos.

I see lots of guns on the back. I see occasional long guns in a two-handed carry and pointed in a reasonably safe direction.

hmmm...such as this fellow on slide number 6,

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nevada-range-war-20140425-story.html#page=1

while he is "John Logan of Waco, Texas, stands at his sentry post outside Cliven Bundy's ranch" with self declared intention from the entire Bundy Bunch to shoot at Federal Agents? Oh...but he is smiling. That should mean something in terms of threat assessment.

1) Note that while his gun is held level there's just desert off to the side there. It's not good but it's not nearly the same thing as doing it with others around.

2) That mess is *NOT* open carry protesters. That was an armed standoff where the government was pussy-footing around and not arresting despite having grounds to arrest everyone involved.

 

[Deepak]

Where?

Then perhaps the cop should have put himself at a distant, defensible position. Regardless of the 911 call, it is still the police officer's responsibility to assess the situation before taking lethal action. It's not like no one has ever reported a fake gun as a real one.

You realize that in that situation even a civilian is under no requirement to retreat? (Although a civilian would have been wrong in entering the situation in the first place.)

This isn't some requirement to retreat we're talking about here. The cops should be ensuring the safety of other shoppers and assessing the situation before they go in guns ablaze.

As in this example where they evacuated the area and didn't shoot anyone and everyone possibly resembling a person holding a weapon without warning.

Versus say this man with a real gun who wasn't summarily shot:

 

[RavenSky]

What strikes me most about the defense of the police is the assumption that the cops should have gone charging down the aisles of WalMart looking for an active threat instead of quickly and quietly searching the store, locating the reported gunman, and seizing the opportunity to clear the area of bystanders before alerting the possible crazy gunman of their presence.

Doesn't it make more sense to use the store's security system to locate the guy, especially since shots had not been fired and none of the other shoppers appeared to be alarmed? Haven't they heard of swatting? The cops didn't even try to asses the threat, and that should have been their first step, not charging down the aisles to engage in a gun battle.

You missed it.

In this case, the police *were* the crazy gunmen.

Ouch. Those two short sentences totally sum up this case (& too many like it) :-(

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where?



You realize that in that situation even a civilian is under no requirement to retreat? (Although a civilian would have been wrong in entering the situation in the first place.)

This isn't some requirement to retreat we're talking about here. The cops should be ensuring the safety of other shoppers and assessing the situation before they go in guns ablaze.

As in this example where they evacuated the area and didn't shoot anyone and everyone possibly resembling a person holding a weapon without warning.

Versus say this man with a real gun who wasn't summarily shot:

You realize that shot was taken by a reporter, no cop saw that.

And how do you suppose they evacuate everyone without knowing where the guy is in the first place? And without giving him a massed target if that was what he was looking for?

 

[RavenSky]

hmmm...such as this fellow on slide number 6,

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nevada-range-war-20140425-story.html#page=1

while he is "John Logan of Waco, Texas, stands at his sentry post outside Cliven Bundy's ranch" with self declared intention from the entire Bundy Bunch to shoot at Federal Agents? Oh...but he is smiling. That should mean something in terms of threat assessment.

1) Note that while his gun is held level there's just desert off to the side there. It's not good but it's not nearly the same thing as doing it with others around.

2) That mess is *NOT* open carry protesters. That was an armed standoff where the government was pussy-footing around and not arresting despite having grounds to arrest everyone involved.

Amazingly... Not one single white guy gun nut got killed in spite of, by your own statement, police had "grounds to arrest everyone involved."

So explain why the cops in Crawford's case couldn't have "pussy-footed around" for the 60 seconds it would have taken to properly communicate with Mr. Crawford and averted this entire tragedy?

 

[Rhea]

And how do you suppose they evacuate everyone without knowing where the guy is in the first place? And without giving him a massed target if that was what he was looking for?

This is a joke, right? In a store with video cameras covering every aisle?

 

[Deepak]

And how do you suppose they evacuate everyone without knowing where the guy is in the first place? And without giving him a massed target if that was what he was looking for?

This is a joke, right? In a store with video cameras covering every aisle?

And they obviously knew exactly where to look for him. The door on the left side of the video is actually the one for their seasonal stuff, and most Walmarts follow similar floor plans - that is to say he was in the corner of the store farthest from the front doors.

Notice in the article I linked above the police had no problem evacuating an entire mall while cordoning off the area they suspected the purported gunman to be in...

 

[Nexus]

Notice in the article I linked above the police had no problem evacuating an entire mall while cordoning off the area they suspected the purported gunman to be in...

This is an important point. Even if you believe the officers were justified in their fears and therefor condone the shooting, there is an obvious flaw in their procedures for threat assessment and actions. Rather than be like Loren and excuse stupid mistakes we need people to recognize the police failures and find better ways to train them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Notice in the article I linked above the police had no problem evacuating an entire mall while cordoning off the area they suspected the purported gunman to be in...

This is an important point. Even if you believe the officers were justified in their fears and therefor condone the shooting, there is an obvious flaw in their procedures for threat assessment and actions. Rather than be like Loren and excuse stupid mistakes we need people to recognize the police failures and find better ways to train them.

Mass have many exits. Stores usually have only one.

 

[Nexus]

Every Walmart I've ever been in has at least three to four exits for the public. The two in front, one in the garden center and another in the auto/tire area. In an emergency police could also direct people to employee areas where there are more exits as well as cargo loading spots that could be used for egress. These cops were incompetent in protecting the public by just rushing in and immediately shooting someone they thought might be a threat.