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

[Loren Pechtel]

Derec, Loren, and all who sail in them

I will ask again.

I would assume most people had seen enough of what was going on to realize it wasn't real. The cop walking into the situation doesn't have the advantage of seeing it develop.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really fault the people who called the police. If he had been in the store with a real gun I'd appreciate someone calling the police. I do fault the police officer for not being sure that it was a real gun before using lethal force. Unless it can be shown that he turned and pointed the BB gun directly at the police officer as if to fire upon him, due diligence in protecting the innocent was not taken in this case. All the other details are simply distractions.

The cops normally fire when someone with a gun turns quickly towards them. By the time the gun is bearing it's too late.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is the cop isn't going to immediately know it's not a real gun.

Doesn't matter if it was a real gun or not. Ohio is an open carry state. Crawford had the legal right to carry a long gun firearm. The cops should have investigated the situation before immediately using deadly force.

Except he wasn't doing anything resembling proper open carry.

The cop challenges him. At that point he either should simply have dropped it or frozen and slowly set it down.

Instead, he tells the cop it's not real and probably turns to face the cop. Wrong move--if someone points a gun at you you do the best to comply with their orders. Absolutely do nothing threatening--if complying with their orders means doing something that appears threatening you ask them how they want you to handle it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Doesn't matter if it was a real gun or not. Ohio is an open carry state. Crawford had the legal right to carry a long gun firearm. The cops should have investigated the situation before immediately using deadly force.

Except he wasn't doing anything resembling proper open carry.

The cop challenges him. At that point he either should simply have dropped it or frozen and slowly set it down.

Instead, he tells the cop it's not real and probably turns to face the cop. Wrong move--if someone points a gun at you you do the best to comply with their orders. Absolutely do nothing threatening--if complying with their orders means doing something that appears threatening you ask them how they want you to handle it.

As has been pointed out several times, there is no evidence Crawford pointed the gun at the LEOs.

 

[Arctish]

Doesn't matter if it was a real gun or not. Ohio is an open carry state. Crawford had the legal right to carry a long gun firearm. The cops should have investigated the situation before immediately using deadly force.

Except he wasn't doing anything resembling proper open carry.

The cop challenges him. At that point he either should simply have dropped it or frozen and slowly set it down.

Instead, he tells the cop it's not real and probably turns to face the cop. Wrong move--if someone points a gun at you you do the best to comply with their orders. Absolutely do nothing threatening--if complying with their orders means doing something that appears threatening you ask them how they want you to handle it.

Suppose one day you're shopping for a new kitchen knife. You find one you think might be okay. As you walk to the checkout line you check out the feel of the handle, the balance of the blade, the sharpness of the edge. Suddenly, someone behind you yells "Drop it!". Now, keeping in mind you have no idea who is shouting to whom and that the sudden noise is startling, what are the chances you will automatically turn in the direction of the shouting to see what the heck is going on behind you?

I think most people would turn instinctively. I know I would, and I'm pretty certain everybody in my extended family would. They wouldn't assume the shout was directed at them because they weren't doing anything that would warrant that sort of behavior. And if any one of them was shot dead because they turned toward a cop with a knife in hand, it would not be their fault for not realizing the cop thought they were about to go on a stabbing spree.

 

[RavenSky]

you continue to claim he "pointed at" and was "brandishing" this non-gun. Where is your supporting evidence? Got video? Even scooter woman contradicts her husband on that point... The husband who also claimed Crawford was "loading the gun" which we know is a fabrication because this type of non-gun is not "loaded" the way an actual gun is.

Excellent point about two major issues with the witnesses in this case:

1. Eye witness testimony is often wildly inaccurate.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx

Of course, in this case, the witnesses called as what they saw as a threatening scenario was taking place, although their statements to media do rely upon recollection.

Which brings me to:

2. Exactly what was so threatening about Crawford? Was he really behaving in such a threatening manner? Why were scooter woman and her husband the only ones who perceived a threat? Was it the fact that there was someone--anyone--with a bb gun/toy? Was it because it was a male? A young male? A black male?

Was their alarm at seeing a young black man with a bb gun in a store heightened by his color? Did their alarm fill in blanks where there was nothing to fill in?

And to continue the questions, if they were so alarmed why did they follow him through the store? Why did an INJURED woman follow this scary black male with. "gun" through the store? Why was she flapping her arms around like a dodo bird trying to "warn" other shoppers that there was a scary black man with a "gun" near them? Apparently he wasn't scary or threatening enough for other shoppers to notice all by themselves?

 

[RavenSky]

I don't really fault the people who called the police. If he had been in the store with a real gun I'd appreciate someone calling the police. I do fault the police officer for not being sure that it was a real gun before using lethal force. Unless it can be shown that he turned and pointed the BB gun directly at the police officer as if to fire upon him, due diligence in protecting the innocent was not taken in this case. All the other details are simply distractions.

. I fault them for specifically telling police that Crawford was loading a gun. There is no way they saw anything like that because it wasn't an actual gun, so they are to blame for ramping up the alarm with this false bit of information, causing the police to come in expecting a genuine and loaded gun.

I do blame police, too, for not making 100% sure there was a genuine threat before murdering Crawford, but the two clowns who called police are to blame as well.

 

[OLDMAN]

I don't really fault the people who called the police. If he had been in the store with a real gun I'd appreciate someone calling the police. I do fault the police officer for not being sure that it was a real gun before using lethal force. Unless it can be shown that he turned and pointed the BB gun directly at the police officer as if to fire upon him, due diligence in protecting the innocent was not taken in this case. All the other details are simply distractions.

. I fault them for specifically telling police that Crawford was loading a gun. There is no way they saw anything like that because it wasn't an actual gun, so they are to blame for ramping up the alarm with this false bit of information, causing the police to come in expecting a genuine and loaded gun.

I do blame police, too, for not making 100% sure there was a genuine threat before murdering Crawford, but the two clowns who called police are to blame as well.

Your right, this should have never happened. But the first rule of being a cop is "no matter what happens, make sure you and your partner go home to your families at the end of the shift. Everything else is secondary...and to be fair if you or I were cops, this is a rule I think I would follow.

So in the end, the Crawford also shares the blame. When cops have their weapons out and tell you to drop the gun, you do not laugh and say: "Its not a real gun, or it's not loaded, (or the equally dumb) I'm not doing anything wrong."

The question we have to ask ourselves is, would I survive this same encounter with the police?

 

[RavenSky]

. I fault them for specifically telling police that Crawford was loading a gun. There is no way they saw anything like that because it wasn't an actual gun, so they are to blame for ramping up the alarm with this false bit of information, causing the police to come in expecting a genuine and loaded gun.

I do blame police, too, for not making 100% sure there was a genuine threat before murdering Crawford, but the two clowns who called police are to blame as well.

Your right, this should have never happened. But the first rule of being a cop is "no matter what happens, make sure you and your partner go home to your families at the end of the shift. Everything else is secondary...and to be fair if you or I were cops, this is a rule I think I would follow.

So in the end, the Crawford also shares the blame. When cops have their weapons out and tell you to drop the gun, you do not laugh and say: "Its not a real gun, or it's not loaded, (or the equally dumb) I'm not doing anything wrong."

The question we have to ask ourselves is, would I survive this same encounter with the police?

What evidence do you have that Crawford "laughed"? This is the first I've heard this claim. The further error in your comment is assuming Crawford instantaneously understood that police were even talking to him. He's walking through the store talking on his cell phone, farting around with an item he's looking at - him knowing it is not a gun. His back is to the police advancing on him, he is unaware of their presence. Suddenly people are screaming at him. He turns to see who/what/why - and he's shot multiple times.

Really not seeing how this is remotely his own fault.

The question we have to ask ourselves is, would I survive this same encounter with the police?

I can't speak for you, but I know I would. I'm an older white woman. Not only would police likely not shoot first, ask questions later - the husband-wide duo would have never called the police in the first place.

That said, just merely being a white woman does not prevent cops from behaving badly towards me as a civilian. Sadly, I have three too many stories of very bad encounters with cops. The difference between my encounters and Michael Brown's is that I wasn't shot 10 times and killed.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Derec, Loren, and all who sail in them

I would assume

I knew you would.

most people had seen enough of what was going on to realize it wasn't real. The cop walking into the situation doesn't have the advantage of seeing it develop.

so the police walk into a situation of people not panicking, not worried, going about their business, and upon coming upon a man that everyone else is ignoring, the police assume they, who just arrived, know more about the situation than all the shoppers who know what is going on and has gone on.

Police are trained to assess the situation. Surely they noticed there was no stampede, no panicking store full of shoppers and no bodies riddled with bullets.

Just one 911 call that describes a would shooter and no other calls to corroborate the first and an actual scene that doesn't jive with the lone call.

My father, with twenty-five years experience wearing a gun and a badge would call that kind of police work, shitty.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really fault the people who called the police. If he had been in the store with a real gun I'd appreciate someone calling the police. I do fault the police officer for not being sure that it was a real gun before using lethal force. Unless it can be shown that he turned and pointed the BB gun directly at the police officer as if to fire upon him, due diligence in protecting the innocent was not taken in this case. All the other details are simply distractions.

The cops normally fire when someone with a gun turns quickly towards them. By the time the gun is bearing it's too late.

you know what police normally do AND that Crawford turned quickly?

 

[laughing dog]

Your right, this should have never happened. But the first rule of being a cop is "no matter what happens, make sure you and your partner go home to your families at the end of the shift. Everything else is secondary...and to be fair if you or I were cops, this is a rule I think I would follow.

That rule, if true, absolves police of every shooting. Police officers are trained to asses situations and paid to take risks, not to blow away citizens.

So in the end, the Crawford also shares the blame.

Crawford is dead, so he has shouldered more than his share of the "blame". On the otherhand, the police officers are alive and not arrested.

When cops have their weapons out and tell you to drop the gun, you do not laugh and say: "Its not a real gun, or it's not loaded, (or the equally dumb) I'm not doing anything wrong."

Please provide a source for those claims.

The question we have to ask ourselves is, would I survive this same encounter with the police?

No, the question we should be asking is "Did these police officers act appropriately given the situation"?

 

[OLDMAN]

Of course that question will be asked, and when the answer comes, it will not be good enough for most people one way or the other. The situation as we now know it, is very different from the situation the police were called to...

They had reports of a man with a gun at walmart.
They did not know the calibre of the gun.
They did not know if the gun was loaded.
They did not know if he had more than one gun.
They did not know if there was more than one person with guns.
They did not know if the man was bat-shit crazy, a wanted felon, a robber, or a shopper walking around with a pellet gun.

Their training tells them to safety gain control of the situation. This should be done from a safe distance. Walking up to an unkown and asking to see the gun, might be the last thing they ever would do. But because of the isles and other shoppers they problaly got too close. Things happpen pretty fast, and if there is a delay in following the command to drop the gun, then self-preservation is allowed.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I don't really fault the people who called the police. If he had been in the store with a real gun I'd appreciate someone calling the police. I do fault the police officer for not being sure that it was a real gun before using lethal force. Unless it can be shown that he turned and pointed the BB gun directly at the police officer as if to fire upon him, due diligence in protecting the innocent was not taken in this case. All the other details are simply distractions.

. I fault them for specifically telling police that Crawford was loading a gun. There is no way they saw anything like that because it wasn't an actual gun, so they are to blame for ramping up the alarm with this false bit of information, causing the police to come in expecting a genuine and loaded gun.

I do blame police, too, for not making 100% sure there was a genuine threat before murdering Crawford, but the two clowns who called police are to blame as well.

I understand what you are saying, but a police officer should be responsible for determining the nature of a threat regardless of what any witnesses have said on the phone, especially when the potential use of deadly force is involved.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Derec, Loren, and all who sail in them

I would assume most people had seen enough of what was going on to realize it wasn't real. The cop walking into the situation doesn't have the advantage of seeing it develop.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really fault the people who called the police. If he had been in the store with a real gun I'd appreciate someone calling the police. I do fault the police officer for not being sure that it was a real gun before using lethal force. Unless it can be shown that he turned and pointed the BB gun directly at the police officer as if to fire upon him, due diligence in protecting the innocent was not taken in this case. All the other details are simply distractions.

The cops normally fire when someone with a gun turns quickly towards them. By the time the gun is bearing it's too late.

It's amazing that I don't even have to look to the side of the post to know that this comment came from you.

 

[Rhea]

But the first rule of being a cop is "no matter what happens, make sure you and your partner go home to your families at the end of the shift. Everything else is secondary...and to be fair if you or I were cops, this is a rule I think I would follow.

I do not think this is actually their first rule. I would not want it to be their first rule. I want their first rule to be, "first, do no harm." And most of them I think do follow this. They care whether the person they are shooting is actually innocent. I'm kind of disturbed by the idea that they shouldn't.

- - - Updated - - -

. I fault them for specifically telling police that Crawford was loading a gun. There is no way they saw anything like that because it wasn't an actual gun, so they are to blame for ramping up the alarm with this false bit of information, causing the police to come in expecting a genuine and loaded gun.

I do blame police, too, for not making 100% sure there was a genuine threat before murdering Crawford, but the two clowns who called police are to blame as well.

I understand what you are saying, but a police officer should be responsible for determining the nature of a threat regardless of what any witnesses have said on the phone, especially when the potential use of deadly force is involved.

Yes. After talking to a lot of witnesses, for the love of reason - YES.

 

[The Paul]

But the first rule of being a cop is "no matter what happens, make sure you and your partner go home to your families at the end of the shift. Everything else is secondary...

If that's your number one rule, you should probably just find a safer job.

What if we talked about other high-risk professions that way. What if a firefighter's number one priority was to make sure he goes home to his family? Look for people in a burning apartment building? Nope.

Except this is worse, because a firefighter who refuses to place himself in danger merely fails to save the lives of people who were already threatened. A cop who refuses to place himself in danger kills people while they're out shopping because they look scary.

 

[Shadowy Man]

But the first rule of being a cop is "no matter what happens, make sure you and your partner go home to your families at the end of the shift. Everything else is secondary...

If that's your number one rule, you should probably just find a safer job.

What if we talked about other high-risk professions that way. What if a firefighter's number one priority was to make sure he goes home to his family? Look for people in a burning apartment building? Nope.

Except this is worse, because a firefighter who refuses to place himself in danger merely fails to save the lives of people who were already threatened. A cop who refuses to place himself in danger kills people while they're out shopping because they look scary.

A long time ago I posted in a thread my opinion that a police officer should be willing to take the risk of being shot at before taking the life of innocent person. I was laughed out of the thread and told that nobody would become a police officer if that were the case.

 

[PyramidHead]

Of course that question will be asked, and when the answer comes, it will not be good enough for most people one way or the other. The situation as we now know it, is very different from the situation the police were called to...

They had reports of a man with a gun at walmart.
They did not know the calibre of the gun.
They did not know if the gun was loaded.
They did not know if he had more than one gun.
They did not know if there was more than one person with guns.
They did not know if the man was bat-shit crazy, a wanted felon, a robber, or a shopper walking around with a pellet gun.

Their training tells them to safely gain control of the situation. This should be done from a safe distance. Walking up to an unkown and asking to see the gun, might be the last thing they ever would do. But because of the isles and other shoppers they problaly got too close. Things happpen pretty fast, and if there is a delay in following the command to drop the gun, then self-preservation is allowed.

Safely for whom?

 

[The Paul]

If that's your number one rule, you should probably just find a safer job.

What if we talked about other high-risk professions that way. What if a firefighter's number one priority was to make sure he goes home to his family? Look for people in a burning apartment building? Nope.

Except this is worse, because a firefighter who refuses to place himself in danger merely fails to save the lives of people who were already threatened. A cop who refuses to place himself in danger kills people while they're out shopping because they look scary.

A long time ago I posted in a thread my opinion that a police officer should be willing to take the risk of being shot at before taking the life of innocent person. I was laughed out of the thread and told that nobody would become a police officer if that were the case.

More like, no one can maintain that attitude in a police culture that views the public as an enemy combatant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course that question will be asked, and when the answer comes, it will not be good enough for most people one way or the other. The situation as we now know it, is very different from the situation the police were called to...

They had reports of a man with a gun at walmart.
They did not know the calibre of the gun.
They did not know if the gun was loaded.
They did not know if he had more than one gun.
They did not know if there was more than one person with guns.
They did not know if the man was bat-shit crazy, a wanted felon, a robber, or a shopper walking around with a pellet gun.

Their training tells them to safety gain control of the situation. This should be done from a safe distance. Walking up to an unkown and asking to see the gun, might be the last thing they ever would do. But because of the isles and other shoppers they problaly got too close. Things happpen pretty fast, and if there is a delay in following the command to drop the gun, then self-preservation is allowed.

With a bunch of people around they should do it at close range. If it really is a crazy you're a lot less likely to see a bystander hit or a hostage situation.

We have him saying "It's not real"--that means he's defending rather than complying.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Of course that question will be asked, and when the answer comes, it will not be good enough for most people one way or the other. The situation as we now know it, is very different from the situation the police were called to...

They had reports of a man with a gun at walmart.
They did not know the calibre of the gun.
They did not know if the gun was loaded.
They did not know if he had more than one gun.
They did not know if there was more than one person with guns.
They did not know if the man was bat-shit crazy, a wanted felon, a robber, or a shopper walking around with a pellet gun.

Their training tells them to safety gain control of the situation. This should be done from a safe distance. Walking up to an unkown and asking to see the gun, might be the last thing they ever would do. But because of the isles and other shoppers they problaly got too close. Things happpen pretty fast, and if there is a delay in following the command to drop the gun, then self-preservation is allowed.

With a bunch of people around they should do it at close range.

why would a bunch of people be around a man "brandishing a gun?"

If it really is a crazy you're a lot less likely to see a bystander hit or a hostage situation.

was there any reason to suspect "a crazy" other than the phone call?

We have him saying "It's not real"--that means he's defending rather than complying.

no, it doesn't.