BREAKING: Video Finally Released of Cops Shooting Man with a Toy Gun in Wal-Mart

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
a reply to: MarlinGrace


We're on the same side, brother...! I'm not looking for a fight...

But, you must admit, that semantics aside, in the world of ballistics, the net energy between the two are pretty relative, compared to the rest of the spectrum. That being said, I wouldn't want to get shot with ANYTHING! Not even a bb.

Yes pain is pain delivered at 500 FPS or 1000 FPS. We need a ATS shooting club. Rock on, no fight from this old man to worn out for that. Good shooting..

a reply to: Ahabstar

Sense: Please make some.

What did I make a snap decision about? That I would witness his execution so as to keep my heart strong enough to help take our home back? Yep. You're right. I'll make that snap decision.

This is not how an officer of the law (charged with protecting the law, of course, not us) is supposed to act. If they want to protect the law so well, they should follow it.

Summary executions by the police when there is no resistance, or even #ing KNOWLEDGE that there is something to resist... are not part of the laws, that I know of. Educate me, please. Tell me how this is how the USoA works legally.

Some people seem to argue that the police was fed the wrong info... but really, does that explain what is obviously a clean execution? Looking at the video, they had the guy cornered. They knew exactly where he was and he was no immediete threat with no victims in danger. He obviously never even saw them coming, its a complete surprise attack. The officers could easily have stood there, aimed their guns at him and told him to drop the gun and get on the floor. Would they be in danger of return fire if he really was dangerous? Of course. That's the entire premise of their damn job. They are trained for this and should be able to make their own assesment of the situation - not trust civilians that have no f**king idea what they're looking at.

This is an execution. Not law enforcement. It doesnt even matter if it had been a real loaded rifle! It would STILL be an execution.

a reply to: Hushabye

You asked if I noticed that he took an unpackaged gun off the shelf indicating that I don't know the particulars of the case. I am telling you that I am quite familiar with the details and if you had read my other posts in this thread you would know that as well instead of a snap decision based off of one post that defined the criteria of brandishing in an open carry state. Hence I think you made a snap decision to berate me. I was pointing out that you can compare an uninformed decision is exactly why the guy made the call to 911. It was a snap decision that had unfortunate consequences.

In your case, it was only berating me while making yourself look a little foolish to anyone that knew I was informed. No biggie but it makes for a good example of how things like this shooting can happen.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Still waiting for the education...and the sense.

originally posted by: muse7
The "former marine" that called 911 should be getting tried for murder

oh not this again.
the cops made the error.

they decided to put stock into what the caller said cause he claimed to be a marine...

thats their fault. it is their job to show up and asses the situation. they killed this guy. their faullt.


ii can see this guy getting charged with making a false report but thats about it.

people lie. the cops know that. they made the mistake of trusting him.
they should know better

edit* i dont get why people want to shift blame from the cop and onto the person who called.

its the cops job to protect and serve. their job to uphold the law. not his


i have a feeling people are upset cause he claimed to be a marine....

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Some other elements left out of the general narrative being floating around that might have some bearing on the outcome.

1. Beavercreek PD had just had Active Shooter training two weeks before this incident. One of the key parts of that training is you shoot the bad guy before he shoots someone. There is no negotiation.

2. Crawford was talking with his "Baby Momma" while out shopping with his girlfriend. While we do not have audio of that conversation, we know it wasn't overly pleasant in tone because the girlfriend wanted Crawford to walk away and deal with her on the phone.

3. The Baby Momma has been interviewed on TV as saying she heard the police order to drop it and Crawford respond it's not a real gun. This is important as it eliminates all claims of the police just bursting in shooting him on sight.

4. Walmart managers were aware of Crawford walking around and were trying to formulate how to approach him as the police were arriving because they thought he could be mistaken for a shooter.


Watch the video a few times especially in the pet food aisle. There were people that came in that aisle and left. The opposing camera view shows them looking back at Crawford as they were leaving. That was not a casual glance back towards him. After being shot Crawford tries to seek shelter from being shot again, which is natural. He runs and falls behind the end of the aisle, gets back up and tries to run from the second officer. He surrenders by laying down on his back, rolling over and putting his arm behind him.

Provided that the DOJ does not charge the officers for something, then my prediction is that Walmart will settle out of court for a large amount when the civil suits start up because the gun was on the shelves unboxed.

I'll say it again. Nobody in this thread cares about the facts of the case. They're more interested in the media version of the story. You're wasting your time on these people. Their mind is made up based on a complete lack of facts and you won't change anyone's mind by presenting the information used by the grand jury to decide that the cops weren't in the wrong.

I've tried to stick to the facts and what can be seen in the video and I've been called stupid, messed up in the head, and various other names in personal attacks because I have made an unbiased assessment of the situation without taking the "police are evil" route.

Nobody here cares what actually happened. They don't care that the grand jury decided that the muzzle coming up and his body language appeared to be a "readying" stance to police. They don't care that the police went in with information that indicated Mr. Crawford was an immediate threat to everyone's safety. They don't care that he was ordered to drop the rifle. They don't care that the "toy gun" looked EXACTLY like a real rifle, was normally inside a box, and was carried all over the store in a ready-to-fire manner by Mr. Crawford. Mr. Crawford's behavior is completely irrelevant to everyone's belief that he was 100% not responsible for the situation and the cops just went in with the intention to murder a black man. Their minds were made up 5 seconds after reading the news headline, facts be damned. Deny ignorance, my ass.

a reply to: Answer

Or maybe we just don't agree when an innocent person is killed for shopping.

originally posted by: Elton
a reply to: Answer

Or maybe we just don't agree when an innocent person is killed for shopping.

That's my point. Your sensationalized statement ignores ALL THE FACTS of the case. Was the victim innocent? Yes. Was that clear at the time? Absolutely not. You can't crucify the police for acting based on what was known at the time. It's very unfortunate what happened but blaming the police, or WalMart, or the 911 dispatchers is asinine.

I sincerely hope that none of you ever end up on a jury in a murder trial.

a reply to: Answer

Yes we can. Some cop, whether innocent or not is going to suffer when (if -.-) we ever get up and stop this, we might as well crucify ones we know are guilty.

You can't crucify the police for acting based on what was known at the time.

Well it's not smart to walk around a store waving a gun. The title of this thread is misleading too, because it was not a toy gun, it was a pellet rifle, which looks much more like the real thing. It's a shame the man was killed, but these things sometimes happen unfortunately. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Elton
a reply to: Answer

Or maybe we just don't agree when an innocent person is killed for shopping.

That's my point. Your sensationalized statement ignores ALL THE FACTS of the case. Was the victim innocent? Yes. Was that clear at the time? Absolutely not. You can't crucify the police for acting based on what was known at the time. It's very unfortunate what happened but blaming the police, or WalMart, or the 911 dispatchers is asinine.

I sincerely hope that none of you ever end up on a jury in a murder trial.

I called for review of police procedures in a previous post.
I don't like innocent blood being spilled.

You seem to have a problem with that and then lash out with the jury trial comment.
You paint with a very broad brush.
Both sides seem to be a little emotional on the subject I think.

a reply to: SheopleNation

One would hope it's not you who is gunned down next time for buying a BB gun completely legally and after having been given no opportunity to drop it or surrender to officers.

a reply to: Answer

Come down off that soapbox and lets take a look at these facts shall we?

1. Muzzle coming up.

Was it? You keep claiming it as a fact though it's more like your interpretation of the events shown in the video. Though even if it were coming up it was not coming up in the direction of police. I've already provided autopsy information that says Mr. Crawford was shot in the back of the left arm and his left side.

2. Realistic gun.

Sure. Though that fact alone doesn't justify the police actions. As has been pointed out, this is an open carry jurisdiction.

3. Police ordered Mr. Crawford to drop the weapon.

So we're told. Though based on visual evidence, which has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the time between any orders and gunfire gave Mr. Crawford no time to comply.

4. Mr. Crawford's behavior

While Mr. Crawford's behavior could be considered irresponsible, it hardly justifies a death sentence. He was talking on his cell phone and shopping. There was no action he took that suggested he was an active shooter. This readying stance was a random body movement in response to getting shot at. There was absolutely no way Mr. Crawford was getting out alive once police were called.

So what facts are we ignoring? Just because we don't agree that police should shoot first and ask questions later doesn't mean we've ignored anything. You've said that one simple movement was justification to open fire. I do not agree with that. You want police to eliminate a threat before the threat arises. I do not agree with that. You believe that Mr. Crawford's irresponsibility justifies his death. I do not agree with that.

originally posted by: Kryties

One would hope it's not you who is gunned down next time for buying a BB gun completely legally and after having been given no opportunity to drop it or surrender to officer.

I don't have to worry about that because I am not stupid enough to grab an opened item, in this case a pellet gun with no orange tip, and walk around waving it in the air. He didn't buy anything.

Look, The guy was a complete imbecile, and that is why he is now dead. Is it a tragic accident? Of course it is. Nevertheless, sometimes you just can't fix stupid. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: SheopleNation

Look, The guy was a complete imbecile, and that is why he is now dead. Is it a tragic accident? Of course it is. Nevertheless, sometimes you just can't fix stupid. ~$heopleNation

So being an imbecile warrants an immediate death sentence with little or no warning?

originally posted by: Kryties
So being an imbecile warrants an immediate death sentence with little or no warning?

I don't believe I suggested that, but obviously being an imbecile, in this case anyway, caused an immediate death sentence with little or no warning.

I mean come on, It's not as if millions of people have not been killed since the beginning of time for being stuck on stupid. The truth of the matter is that plenty have. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: SheopleNation

If it can prevent similar deaths from happening then it is worth discussing.

What some people seem to be missing is, he was in a shop that sells toys, walking around holding a toy while on the phone.

The Toy was out of packaging and he picked it up.
Regardless of having it on show, in his mind he's holding a toy in a shop, he didn't threaten a soul.

Yet the ones with the REAL guns killed the guy with the toy gun.

How can the victim be to blame? It boggles my mind that anyone could think that way.

The mistake is the police shooting an UNARMED man in toy shop. Not the customer.

originally posted by: Kryties

If it can prevent similar deaths from happening then it is worth discussing.

I agree with you. A simple solution would be to put Pellet Guns and Airsoft rifles behind the counter in a locked case. That way you wouldn't have opened items laying around the store for idiots to pick up and wave around. ~$heopleNation