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

John Crawford was shot in the BACK of his arm and his side.
How is this possible if they said he turned around and started pointing the gun to them?

SMH

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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

Read the thread, please. It has already been stated that the air rifle was a Crossman MK-177 which is a life-size replica of a Bushmaster ACR.

It takes a lot less than 10 seconds to turn and shoot someone.

originally posted by: Jaellma
John Crawford was shot in the BACK of his arm and his side.
How is this possible if they said he turned around and started pointing the gun to them?

SMH

Do you know what happens when you get shot in the left side with your arm down... it will possibly hit the back of your arm.

You can see in the video, just like the grand jury did, that when the officers yell at him, he turns his head to the left and his knees/feet start to move as though he's turning to face the officers. The muzzle of the rifle starts to move up. You have to look at the small motions at the moment just before the shots are fired. You're considering the whole event instead of exactly how his body looked at the EXACT moment the officer reacted. Details, people... details. If there was a way to watch in slow-mo, I could point out exactly what I'm talking about so people will stop claiming "he didn't turn toward the officers!" That hasn't been claimed... what has been claimed is that he turned his head and the movement in his lower body suggested he was starting to turn. This, combined with the movement of the rifle's muzzle is what caused the officer to fire.

Whether this was a natural startled reaction to being yelled at or not, it's irrelevant. This motion appeared to police to be him turning to face them and bring the rifle up. They weren't going to wait to find out if he intended to raise the rifle and fire.

a reply to: Answer
Why don't the cowards take cover and give people a chance to react? Don't they teach common sense at the academy anymore? Natural reactions are irrelevant? Dumbest thing I ever heard.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Answer
Why don't the cowards take cover and give people a chance to react? Don't they teach common sense at the academy anymore? Natural reactions are irrelevant? Dumbest thing I ever heard.

There was no cover. There were store shelves and bullets go through those.

When you give people with a rifle time to react, you often end up in a shootout. Rule #1 of surviving a gunfight: "Don't get into a gunfight."

Stop applying Hollywood principles to a real-life scenario.

a reply to: Answer
If it was anyone but cops shooting like that, they would be in prison. Cops are supposedly trained, they should be held to higher standards. Cowards should not get into police work. You can't bark a command, and expect people to not at least look to see what idiot is barking commands before reacting. Everytime you hear someone yell something, do you listen without seeing who is yelling and why?

a reply to: Answer

Of course the first rule is to not get into a gunfight (by disabling the other individuals) but how dumb are they? Whoever let it escalate, either the brainless security for not seeing it, preventing it and not acting, to the store, ensured the police would respond. How the police reacted was insane.

a reply to: TKDRL

^ This. Years from now they'll be retired off the force with a huge pension and they'll look back at that kid's death and laugh.

Enough of this guns out, shoot first ask no questions attitude most of them have. I realize however, we don't have police anymore we have the American equivalent of "You question me? Shut up show me your papers or you die."

originally posted by: coldkidc
a reply to: Answer

God forbid you carry around a product in the store that it's being sold in. Stop using this as your go-to line. People do not carry unboxed air rifles around a store for a reason. He was incredibly absent-minded or downright stupid to behave the way he did.

It must be walmarts fault right? Shouldn't sell that product? Only someone who doesn't believe in personal responsibility thinks that way...

Maybe it's the kid's fault then? He was asking for it right? What if that was your cousin or child? Stop sensationalizing... he was 22 years old. That is not a kid. His behavior got him killed. He wasn't asking for it but his actions were 100% responsible for his death. You're just repeating what's already been said in this thread... if he was related to me that wouldn't change the fact that his moronic behavior got him killed.

How's he supposed to get the gun from the sporting goods section to the front of the store then? You pick up one that's still in the box. You don't walk around the store holding it by the grip and swinging it around. You don't loiter for 8 minutes in the corner of the store next to an exit. Stop pretending that his behavior was normal shopping. It wasn't.

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? That officer was in a situation of high stress and running on adrenaline. The information he had at the time indicated there was a very real and immediate threat to bystanders. He did his job by first ordering Mr. Crawford to drop the weapon (confirmed by folks who heard the phone call) and when Mr. Crawford's body language suggested he was about to fire, the officer did what he was trained to do. Period.

You're willing to place the blame on anyone but the guys that actually killed Nope. I place the blame 100% on Mr. Crawford because he was responsible for his death. The caller who embellished the facts didn't help the situation but he was likely reporting his perception of events. I don't think that he lied to get someone killed. I think that he saw bits and pieces of what we see in the last 30 seconds of the video and he made his claims based on that.

It's easy to watch this video now and start slinging blame all over the place but you have to consider what happened at the time of the incident, how things were perceived, and the mindset of the people involved.

It's also very revealing that you aren't willing to stick to discussing the facts. You want to question my character and keep moving the goalposts to argue about everything except what actually occurred at the moment of the shooting.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: TKDRL

^ This. Years from now they'll be retired off the force with a huge pension and they'll look back at that kid's death and laugh.

Police officers are people with a job to do, not psychopaths. Statements like yours detract from the whole issue and are the reason why people will stop taking you seriously when you whine about police brutality.

a reply to: Answer

It's true and it happens all the time. How many times have police officers been let back on the job after killing someone, maiming someone, harassing someone? So many cases and they're back on the street.

Citizens have ruined lives and they're back on the street. This is what happens when you allow bullies and petty petulant individuals to have any form of power. We see it in every echelon of society. From the moronic DMV worker proud to slow you down to the psychotic cop hovering like a shark if you go 1 mile over the limit.

People are tired of them. We will not take their tyranny anymore because each time they get away with murdering a child, it ruins not only those who suffered a lost, it ruins the community. They have an attitude where whatever can't fire them can only make them stronger and it escalates each time.

What's stopping a mob of people from stringing them up and mailing them to their brothers? Easy, the brothers have become militarized and are expecting a mob to come any day now. What, where and how they'll be set off is anybody's guess.

I'm sure that some of you have witnessed the decline in Tony Stewart's persona and general hygiene over the last few months. His involvement in the accident that took the life of young Mr. Ward, has weighed heavily on him!
He too, was exonerated by a Grand Jury, but I know it will haunt him for the rest of his life!

I wonder if the cop that fired the lethal shot at Mr. Crawford will lose any sleep over his actions?

I just spent the better part of my afternoon reading the documents from this link:

Walmart Shooting Documents

I noticed that on several of the documents the dates that are on them are several days after the incident. In fact, one of the officers (Darkow) that was involved didn't make his statesman until 8/18, THIRTEEN DAYS AFTER the incident.

What's up with that? I know that as a medical professional, I have to chart when things actually happen, or shortly after. If I chart something even an hour late, I have to put "late entry..." This is really disturbing to me, these statements being made almost two weeks after the fact. Why wouldn't these documents and statements be completed that evening or even the following day, on 8/6???

So much of what is in those docs totally contradicts what we see in the video. I feel that the 911 caller who stated Crawford was pointing the gun at children and waving it all around at people in the store should be changed with something. Inducing Panic at the very least. If he was honest when he made the call, I wonder if any of this would have happened?

Oh, and I loved the one from the woman that called about "black males" making a scene at the store a few days before and how she was sure that Crawford was one of them...

The one responsible is whomever left that gun unboxed in the store. This is a predictable outcome of that.

He was incredibly absent-minded or downright stupid to behave the way he did.

Being absent-minded and stupid is not a reason to be shot.

Only someone who doesn't believe in personal responsibility thinks that way...

Only someone who believes simply being young and dumb deserves to be shot on sight would believe the cops were in the right here.

he was 22 years old. That is not a kid. His behavior got him killed.

I'm 43. I would never walk around any store with a bb-gun (or water gun or any gun) in the manner that he did because I have been around long enough to know doing so will cause incidents like this, right or wrong. I read the news, keep up on what's going on in this world. I'm much wiser than I was at 22. However, when I was in my early 20s, I may have done such a thing because I was naive and never in a million years would have thought taking a product off of a shelf and walking around the store with it would illicit a police response, and I really wouldn't have thought doing so would have ended my life. Being 43, to me, he is still a kid. My daughter is 24 and I still consider her a "kid". I call the college kids across the street from me kids, even though they're in their 20s.

Stop pretending that his behavior was normal shopping

Whether or not his behavior was "normal shopping behavior" (whatever that is), it certainly wasn't any kind of threatening, gun-toting-maniac behavior that I've ever seen. I saw absolutely nothing that would lead me to believe he was going to hurt or threaten anyone. Certainly not behavior that would make me believe he deserved to be shot in the way that he was. Did he deserve to be talked to by security, maybe even have an officer called? Possibly, in today's world, yes. Did he deserve what he got? Absolutely not.

That officer was in a situation of high stress and running on adrenaline. The information he had at the time indicated there was a very real and immediate threat to bystanders

Officers of the law are supposed to be trained on how to react in high-stress situations. I'm not seeing trained, restrained, intelligent officers here. They obviously didn't have good information because Mr. Crawford never threatened anyone.

I think that he saw bits and pieces of what we see in the last 30 seconds of the video and he made his claims based on that.

Please show me what particular behavior required the response that it got in the last 30 seconds of the video because all I saw was a guy standing in one spot talking on a phone, fidgeting with a pellet gun. He wans't "brandishing" a weapon, he wans't loading a shotgun or rifle, he was certainly not running around pointing it at people, kids, threatening them. It's quite insulting to people's intelligence to try and say he was behaving otherwise, implying we're stupid and we're missing something. I see adults and children that he walks by or that come into the aisle where he is that don't pay him even a second glance or even acknowledge him. There was nothing threatening about his behavior whatsoever and it's really sad that today's "see-something-say-something" fear campaign has gotten to some people so deeply.

Was it poor behavior on Mr. Crawford's part? Sure, I'll agree that he probably wasn't the brightest bulb in the house but I really don't care what the cops said or what the Grand Jury's decision was, because they're certainly not God. He did not deserve to be shot like he was, and he certainly didn't deserve to die.

Between the time the 911 call was made, and the time swat shows up, did the police try to contact the store to find out if anyone there knew what was going on?

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Answer

It's true and it happens all the time. How many times have police officers been let back on the job after killing someone, maiming someone, harassing someone? So many cases and they're back on the street.

You know damn good and well that I was referring to your quip about them laughing about killing this man. Don't be coy.

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused

He was incredibly absent-minded or downright stupid to behave the way he did.

Being absent-minded and stupid is not a reason to be shot. If you're being absent minded and stupid with a firearm in a public place, it just might become a reason to be shot.

Only someone who doesn't believe in personal responsibility thinks that way...

Only someone who believes simply being young and dumb deserves to be shot on sight would believe the cops were in the right here. 22 years old. Not a kid. At what age is a person responsible for behaving properly in public? 30? 40?

he was 22 years old. That is not a kid. His behavior got him killed.

I'm 43. I would never walk around any store with a bb-gun (or water gun or any gun) in the manner that he did because I have been around long enough to know doing so will cause incidents like this, right or wrong. I read the news, keep up on what's going on in this world. I'm much wiser than I was at 22. However, when I was in my early 20s, I may have done such a thing because I was naive and never in a million years would have thought taking a product off of a shelf and walking around the store with it would illicit a police response, and I really wouldn't have thought doing so would have ended my life. Being 43, to me, he is still a kid. My daughter is 24 and I still consider her a "kid". I call the college kids across the street from me kids, even though they're in their 20s.

Stop pretending that his behavior was normal shopping

Whether or not his behavior was "normal shopping behavior" (whatever that is), it certainly wasn't any kind of threatening, gun-toting-maniac behavior that I've ever seen. I saw absolutely nothing that would lead me to believe he was going to hurt or threaten anyone. Certainly not behavior that would make me believe he deserved to be shot in the way that he was. Did he deserve to be talked to by security, maybe even have an officer called? Possibly, in today's world, yes. Did he deserve what he got? Absolutely not.

That officer was in a situation of high stress and running on adrenaline. The information he had at the time indicated there was a very real and immediate threat to bystanders

Officers of the law are supposed to be trained on how to react in high-stress situations. I'm not seeing trained, restrained, intelligent officers here. They obviously didn't have good information because Mr. Crawford never threatened anyone.

I think that he saw bits and pieces of what we see in the last 30 seconds of the video and he made his claims based on that.

Please show me what particular behavior required the response that it got in the last 30 seconds of the video because all I saw was a guy standing in one spot talking on a phone, fidgeting with a pellet gun. Stop saying that, there's no way you would have known that at the scene. You're using hindsight again. He was in a corner of the store far away from sporting goods, next to an entrance/exit, with an unboxed rifle and no cart or box nearby. No reasonable person would say "he's just fidgeting with a pellet gun." He wans't "brandishing" a weapon, he wans't loading a shotgun or rifle, he was certainly not running around pointing it at people, kids, threatening them. What he was doing is the legal definition of brandishing if you were in the store at the time and not here now with all the details of the case. You keep looking at this with all the details that are now known and you simply can't do that in an honest debate about who was at fault. It's quite insulting to people's intelligence to try and say he was behaving otherwise, implying we're stupid and we're missing something. I see adults and children that he walks by or that come into the aisle where he is that don't pay him even a second glance or even acknowledge him. There was nothing threatening about his behavior whatsoever and it's really sad that today's "see-something-say-something" fear campaign has gotten to some people so deeply.

Was it poor behavior on Mr. Crawford's part? Sure, I'll agree that he probably wasn't the brightest bulb in the house but I really don't care what the cops said or what the Grand Jury's decision was, because they're certainly not God. He did not deserve to be shot like he was, and he certainly didn't deserve to die. No, he didn't deserve it but he was responsible for it. Why are people having so much trouble admitting that?

originally posted by: Answer
Whether this was a natural startled reaction to being yelled at or not, it's irrelevant. This motion appeared to police to be him turning to face them and bring the rifle up. They weren't going to wait to find out if he intended to raise the rifle and fire.

If such a thing is irrelevant then civilians literally stand no chance. Even if you make a move to comply with law enforcement orders, you will still be shot by paranoid, skittish, trigger happy killers. No need to wait and verify a threat before killing people because that is apparently a Hollywood principle.

originally posted by: FraggleRock

originally posted by: Answer
Whether this was a natural startled reaction to being yelled at or not, it's irrelevant. This motion appeared to police to be him turning to face them and bring the rifle up. They weren't going to wait to find out if he intended to raise the rifle and fire.

If such a thing is irrelevant then civilians literally stand no chance. Even if you make a move to comply with law enforcement orders, you will still be shot by paranoid, skittish, trigger happy killers. No need to wait and verify a threat before killing people because that is apparently a Hollywood principle.

If you have a rifle in a public place, you can damn well bet that any motion seen as a readying movement will get you shot. If you're in a public place holding a rifle by its grip, you have already established that you're a threat.