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

originally posted by: FraggleRock
a reply to: Answer

If the facts were as clear as you want to make them would the Justice Department waste their time? Though I'm sure this will be another thing we disagree on.

Did you read my last post?

The statement from the DOJ clearly says that they are investigating for civil rights violations. They're investigating because the family is never satisfied by the initial ruling in cases like this.

When the Justice Dept clears the officers of any wrongdoing, will you finally admit that you were wrong? I'm guessing not.

a reply to: Answer

They're not obligated to review every case simply because a family requests it. If the facts of the case are as crystal clear as you want them to be they would not waste their time simply to appease the family.

No need to guess. I will never concede to being wrong when expecting law enforcement to use some restraint before murdering innocent civilians simply because they are holding a scary looking weapon.

It was in my earlier link regarding public records, but the autopsy report confirmed his girlfriend's statement of Crawford reeking of weed by finding THC in his toxicology screen. Ohio is not a decriminalized state by any means. This will be used by any competent lawyer to deny any sort of compensation for his family.

But as I said earlier, LeeCee Johnson heard him over the phone say it isn't real just before he was shot. I think anyone could conclude that he was responding to officer's command to drop the weapon.

What we have is a guy unaware of his surroundings by being distracted with a phone conversation and possibly still buzzed. Shot because he wanted to argue his position with officers that thought he posed a serious threat to public and personal safety. Shot fatally, but he died later at the hospital not in Walmart. Yes, Crawford failed on a personal responsibility level here. The officers could only deal with the information they had (albeit erroneous) and his lack of compliance to a lawful order. His body turning to confront them (or flee) without dropping the weapon is what cause the officer to fire. The officers could have easily been a CCW holder that thought Crawford was threat (the 911 caller perhaps) and he could have still been shot for not dropping the weapon when ordered. But, had it been a CCW holder he would have been guilty of being a vigilante.

And there is your basis for an argument if you want to make one. That LEO's have a greater latitude in errant shootings than private citizens even when both are acting in the public interest.

originally posted by: imitator
.... it's very possible after seeing the video and reading the police report that someone has manipulated the grand jury....

There was! The prosecutor that presented the case to them!

As lawyers go, D.A.s are some of the best at what they do. Which would make them equally adept at using the evidence to slant the story in whichever direction that they choose.

If the prosecutor went after the cop(s) as fervently as they do civilians that they almost always immediately assign guilt to, I guarantee that the grand jury would have heard a completely different narrative!

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: coldkidc
a reply to: Answer



Mine see a kid, focused 100% on a phone conversation, standing there idly swinging the air pistol, aimed at the ground, back and forth over and over completely oblivious to his surroundings.

He does it the same way almost the whole time, right up until he's shot without warning...

He doesn't raise it at the police
He doesn't react at all

Then you haven't watched the full video.

He shoulders it several times, turns his back to the camera and fiddles with it, etc. He did react to police... he turned his head and his knee buckles as though he's turning his body... at this moment the muzzle starts to move upward. Was he raising the rifle at police? Probably not. Did his body language suggest this enough for the police to consider it a threat? Yes. That's what the grand jury decided so your opinion after half-assedly watching the video is irrelevant. You have to consider minute details about the exact moment of the shooting, not your overall opinion of the entire scenario. He wasn't a kid, he was a 22 year old man. Stop trying to make it sound more sensational. Statements like yours are exactly why I keep using the term "dishonest." You are not basing your statements on fact or what can be seen in the video, you're basing it on your opinion of the overall outcome.

Oh my god...yes...yes, I watched the video...and not "half-assedly"
I was specifically referring to the segment of time from when the video slows back down until the moment the police arrive.

His knees buckled because he got hit by a bullet and started trying to run just like any human being would do if they were talking on the phone & unexpectedly experienced a 5.56 round ripping through them.

The muzzle was not swinging towards the police, it was moving just like it had the previous 3 or 4 times...simply back and forth.
It was not a threatening gesture & besides, it's irrelevant because it is an OPEN CARRY STATE!!!

Do you ever stop and wonder why 9 out of 10 people are disagreeing with you or do you just blindly trudge on with your head down towing the company line???

I think it's more than safe to say that YOU sir are the one being dishonest by trying to make this appear like anything less than it is - a cold blooded killing and disrespect for the value of human life

originally posted by: coldkidc


Oh my god...yes...yes, I watched the video...and not "half-assedly"
I was specifically referring to the segment of time from when the video slows back down until the moment the police arrive.

His knees buckled because he got hit by a bullet and started trying to run just like any human being would do if they were talking on the phone & unexpectedly experienced a 5.56 round ripping through them. Wrong. His knee bent when he turned to respond to the police commands. That's what the grand jury used to state it was seen as a "readying motion." Stop making up your own version of the facts.

The muzzle was not swinging towards the police, it was moving just like it had the previous 3 or 4 times...simply back and forth.
It was not a threatening gesture & besides, it's irrelevant because it is an OPEN CARRY STATE!!! Open carry does not permit you to brandish a weapon. Stop stating that as though it's a fact. I never said the muzzle was moving toward police, I said it was coming up. The cops didn't sit and watch him for 8 minutes like you had the luxury of doing to determine he was swinging the rifle up and down.

Do you ever stop and wonder why 9 out of 10 people are disagreeing with you or do you just blindly trudge on with your head down towing the company line??? Because 9 out of 10 people in this thread flocked here because their mind was already made up before this video was released. Unfortunately, only a few people are looking at the facts of the case. Most people here will not consider the facts because they already decided that this was a "cold blooded killing of an innocent black man shopping in WalMart."

I think it's more than safe to say that YOU sir are the one being dishonest by trying to make this appear like anything less than it is - a cold blooded killing and disrespect for the value of human life More sensational statements from a person ignoring and manipulating the facts of the case. Pathetic. I have put forth a lot of effort to stick to the facts and not let my emotions drive my thoughts about this case. You can't even begin to claim that I've been dishonest about anything I've stated in this thread.

a reply to: Answer

All you're concerned about is being a staunch LEO apologist - you'd be singing a different tune if that was your kid - I'd bet everything I have on it.

originally posted by: FraggleRock
a reply to: Answer

They're not obligated to review every case simply because a family requests it. If the facts of the case are as crystal clear as you want them to be they would not waste their time simply to appease the family.

No need to guess. I will never concede to being wrong when expecting law enforcement to use some restraint before murdering innocent civilians simply because they are holding a scary looking weapon.

Ok, keep making things up to justify your opinion.

originally posted by: coldkidc
a reply to: Answer

All you're concerned about is being a staunch LEO apologist - you'd be singing a different tune if that was your kid - I'd bet everything I have on it.

Because someone who sticks to the facts must be an LEO apologist...

I have no bias one way or the other regarding police officers. They make mistakes, often, because they're human. Sometimes they are outright blatant piece of sh1t human beings that use the badge as an excuse to abuse people... case in point would be the woman who was beaten by the officer on the side of the road a few months ago.

The problem I have is with people claiming every shooting is a case of police abuse. Go after the REAL cases of police brutality instead of whitewashing every scenario with the same brush. You'll end up with 2 possible scenarios: 1) people will stop listening to your accusations because it's been done to death or 2) police will be so afraid of backlash that they'll hesitate to act and it will get innocent people killed.

This shooting took place while the Ferguson fiasco was going down and reporters jumped on it with the mindset that the story would be more popular because of the climate surrounding "white police officer on black suspect" shootings. You bought into the hype and now you won't consider the facts of the case because your mind is already made up.

It's an unfortunate thing that happened but the police did not "murder an innocent black man." They made the right call with the information they had at the time. That it turned out to be incorrect information afterward was not their fault but they still have to live with it.

a reply to: Answer

I don't care about the color of his skin - I'm not buying into any hype.

All I want to see is a police force that pulls the gun out last...not first.

The FACTS are that:

Man walks into walmart
Man picks up walmart product off of shelf
Man does not directly threaten or even talk to anyone else in store
Man is gunned down within 2 seconds of police presence

Whether you want to elaborate on the details of that or not - those facts are indisputable.

I don't see how you can possibly think that's an appropriate or justifiable police response unless you are one yourself or have been goal purposed to justify their actions.

originally posted by: coldkidc
a reply to: Answer

I don't care about the color of his skin - I'm not buying into any hype.

All I want to see is a police force that pulls the gun out last...not first.

The FACTS are that:

Man walks into walmart
Man picks up walmart product off of shelf
Man does not directly threaten or even talk to anyone else in store
Man is gunned down within 2 seconds of police presence

Whether you want to elaborate on the details of that or not - those facts are indisputable.

I don't see how you can possibly think that's an appropriate or justifiable police response unless you are one yourself or have been goal purposed to justify their actions.

You're ignoring everything that matters, again. This is getting really old dealing with the dishonesty and denial.

The facts that are relevant to the shooting are:
1) Man stands around with an exact-replica of a military-style firearm.
2) Man swings it, shoulders it, holds it up to fiddle with it for approximately 8 minutes in a section of the store by the door where firearms are not displayed and people do not naturally think "he's just inspecting that airgun that's sold in this section."
3) Man is seen by people engaging in this behavior and they report to police that there's a man pointing a gun at people and he appears to be loading it.
4) Police confront man and order him to drop it (according to legitimate witnesses) and he starts to turn his body as the muzzle comes up from the ground. Those are facts. Whether he was pointing it at police or just startled is irrelevant to how it appeared to police at the time.

Every fact that you pointed out was not known at the time. That's why I keep repeating the actual facts of the case and not what was known afterward. You can't base your opinion on what was known after the fact... to do so is not rational.

a reply to: Answer

Military style rifle? ?
Which one exactly.
Oh and the man the called in the initial call turned out to be a liar correct? And you saw the video, they gave him less then 10 seconds to comply before they shot him, and if turning around is a threat, then we are all screwed

a reply to: Answer

God forbid you carry around a product in the store that it's being sold in.

It must be walmarts fault right? Shouldn't sell that product?

Maybe it's the kid's fault then? He was asking for it right? What if that was your cousin or child?

How's he supposed to get the gun from the sporting goods section to the front of the store then?
Don't want to risk getting gunned down...

Was that officer an animal without a brain, an unthinking robot? Not responsible for his actions then?

You're willing to place the blame on anyone but the guys that actually killed

a reply to: Sremmos80

I agree.

When they say freeze apparently they actually mean don't flinch or your dead.

That's completely unreasonable & there is something seriously wrong with the way our "peace" officers are trained.

This happens way too much.

I work @ Wal-Mart, and I agree that the associates working that shift were very lax and left the tool out, have probably been fired, and is working on new procedures and stuff.

The cops need training plain and simple,they need to overhaul their procedure on when deadly force is necessary I am not sure if you guys had posted this before but this has got to stop the below is a vid of a SC State Trooper shooting a man after giving confusing directions: show me your licences man reached for licences State cop opened fire.

What really bother's me this guy kept apologizing to that friggin incompetent cop for being shot ,no apologies from cop just hold tight bro ambulance is coming .

originally posted by: Ahabstar
. Ohio is not a decriminalized state by any means. This will be used by any competent lawyer to deny any sort of compensation for his family.

But

for what its worth, it is very much decriminalized here in ohio.

hxxp://norml.org/aboutmarijuana/item/states-that-have-decriminalized

hxxp://norml.org/laws/item/ohio-penalties-2?category_id=879


read it there. i broke the links so if you want to look change the xx to tt.

a reply to: CardiffGiant

I stand corrected. Pretty recent changes considering a couple joints could get you years if the judge, prosecutor or sheriff was up for re-election, especially in the rural counties. But Ohio won't be a medical state for a long time unless it is done legislatively like this was. The Ohio voters took a long time and several tries to approve casino gambling.

originally posted by: Answer
Ok, keep making things up to justify your opinion.

I haven't made one thing up. You can disagree with anything I've posted but don't accuse me of making anything up. Now try to remain on topic please.

a reply to: Shredder36

This is horrifying anyone who says racial profiling/racism is dead in America is dead WRONG. now