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

originally posted by: Answer
a reply to: Answer
The lengths people are going to in order to excuse Mr. Crawford of any fault are just ridiculous and transparent.

They are.

Take ANY random person (who is not a gun nutter maybe) and show them the footage. (Maybe don't tell them that he actually picked up the gun from the stand with the ALLEGED intention to purchase is).

I, as someone non-biased...cannot see any "normal" behavior on this video...AND PRETTY SURE THE CALLER/WITNESS DIDN'T EITHER.

I see a guy with a very realistic looking gun behaving very oddly in a public place. I see him "loitering" and wandering around with a gun, there is NO INDICATION that this is a person who would like to purchase the gun. He has no cart, he didn't ask a clerk to box/bag the gun, he didn't put the gun somewhere like any other sane person with a IQ > potato would do. He does NOT look like someone shopping, in fact he is spending 8+ minutes in this footage (5+ mins of this alone standing in a corner in one single place, and indeed "pointing" the gun randomly at stuff, putting it over the shoulder etc..)..NOTHING in the slightest indicates this is a shopper who intends to purchase this gun, nothing.

Any witness who sees the same scene will think the same thing. And any witness/caller who would call 911 concerned about this would be entire justified.

Calling the caller "murderer" is just entirely absurd. No effing witness EVER will be 100% accurate. Not here, not a witness of a car accident or burglary. They will report, often falsely (yes, indeed!) and often subjectively/emotionally. They will report what they BELIEVE they see.

Pro Tip: Don't act like a brain-amputated moron in a public space...and IF YOU DO...don't be surprised that it may have consequences, such as a witness calling 911 and ERRONEOUSLY reporting stuff which is not actually the case. But this is NOT the witness's/caller's fault, it's entirely this moron's fault. Neither the witness/caller nor the cops "knew" this is a BB gun or did know about the guy's alleged intention he wanted to purchase this gun. How should they? Watch the effing video and tell me this looks like a guy who wants to purchase a gun, fake or not. Seriously, ridiculous.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Answer
The lengths people are going to in order to excuse Mr. Crawford of any fault are just ridiculous and transparent.

No, we're being rational. He was talking on his phone with his back to the cops. He had displayed no ill intent and was screwing around with an unloaded pellet gun... something that looks like a firearm but isn't one.

There's more of that dishonesty. You act like him holding an airgun that is an EXACT LIFE-SIZE replica of a real firearm by its grip is not relevant to the case. It is EVERYTHING to this case. Stop making excuses.

This is not a case of a man being shot because he's black. This is not a case of a man being shot because he was acting strangely. This is not a case of a man being shot because he was talking on a cell phone. This is a case of a man being shot because he appeared to everyone at the scene to be waving a rifle around and behaving strangely. When confronted, his movements, however subtle, were enough to indicate an act of "readying." THOSE are the facts of this case and no matter what you people keep trying to make it into, the facts are all that matter.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Answer

The lengths people will go to say he deserved what he got is even more ridiculous and transparent.
This man was essentially killed for being stupid.
Was not given the opportunity to cease what he was doing by his killers, just shot dead for his actions that were putting no one in danger

I haven't once said he deserved it.

Was he responsible for his own death? Absolutely. Big difference. When it looks like you're about to point a loaded rifle at the cops, they don't give you a second chance to stop what you're doing. I don't care if you're distracted by a phone call or not.

It's already been said in this thread that the grand jury decided his motion toward the officers was seen as a "readying" stance. They looked at the video much more closely than anyone in this thread has been able to... but don't let those pesky facts get in the way of a good-ol torch and pitchfork session.

Crossman air riffles look very similar to a real gun at first glance. Theres a reason toy guns in todays world are orange or purple. Back in the 80's they had toy guns that looked real. There was a cop in my area that shot a 7 year old because of a toy gun.

In the 90's I was out hunting squirrels in a field by my house with a crossman bb gun when I was a teen. Someone called the cops and said I had a gun. The police showed up in force with weapons drawn. One false move and I was dead.

In todays world things are a lot different. I don't blame the cops at all in this incident they probably thought it was a real gun.

a reply to: Answer

Wasn't saying it was you, just saying that it is apparent in this thread.
Just tried of cops guessing and getting it wrong and that wrong guess leading to the death of a person, who might also have a family he or she wants to go home to.
Agreed he was acting dumb and very possibly wanted to steal that air gun, but those of those are not death sentences imo.
Idc what the grand jury said, I saw what I saw and it was a man who was not given the opportunity to drop said 'weapon' and if turning around to see who is shouting at you is a 'readying" stance., well who am I kidding it's been that way for a while.
IMO these cops went in there with a predetermined outcome and they carried it out

I'm reading a LOT of speculation regarding intent!

As a former employee of a FFL, (gun shop) it was absolutely imperative that a potential customer:
Handled the weapon!
Looked down the sights!
Shouldered the weapon if it was a long gun!
And, either showed proficiency or was coached to confirm that they could operate the features of the weapon!

A pellet rifle would be no different.

Length of pull.
Proper sight alignment.
Grip angle.
Ability to load and unload the weapon.
Ability to make the weapon safe.
Comfort.
Control.
Suitable overall ergonomics.

All these and more, were determining factors, as to whether a specific weapon was right for the customer.

My point is that it is very common to do exactly what the guy was doing, before purchasing (in his case) a rifle.

And, as previously mentioned, he was having a phone conversation with his former girlfriend, at the same time! Which is most likely the reason that he was wandering around and "fiddling" with it. The fidgeting was a sub-conscious side effect of boredom, while his ex was droning on and on, about who knows what...

AND, I'll bet my first born, that somewhere in some data bank at Langley, there is a digital file of the entire phone conversation, that would put A LOT of the speculation about the deceased's frame of mind, to rest! But, I guarantee that we will never hear THAT audio clip.....

a reply to: wantsome

Well they thought wrong and killed a man over it in less then 30 seconds of them even seeing him.

Tried of cops getting zero blame for things like this. They killed a man, but it's ok cause they didn't know.

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
I'm reading a LOT of speculation regarding intent!

As a former employee of a FFL, (gun shop) it was absolutely imperative that a potential customer:
Handled the weapon!
Looked down the sights!
Shouldered the weapon if it was a long gun!
And, either showed proficiency or was coached to confirm that they could operate the features of the weapon!

A pellet rifle would be no different.

Length of pull.
Proper sight alignment.
Grip angle.
Ability to load and unload the weapon.
Ability to make the weapon safe.
Comfort.
Control.
Suitable overall ergonomics.

All these and more, were determining factors, as to whether a specific weapon was right for the customer.

My point is that it is very common to do exactly what the guy was doing, before purchasing (in his case) a rifle.

And, as previously mentioned, he was having a phone conversation with his former girlfriend, at the same time! Which is most likely the reason that he was wandering around and "fiddling" with it. The fidgeting was a sub-conscious side effect of boredom, while his ex was droning on and on, about who knows what...

I've been involved in the firearms industry for a very long time as well and you're being dishonest with your statements.

People in a gun store do not wander around with a firearm. They stand in front of the sales clerk and check all those things you're talking about. In a store that deals primarily in firearms, it's still not allowed to walk around with a gun of any sort. Even in Cabela's or Bass Pro Shop, they have display models of the air rifles and once you've looked at the display, you take a boxed model to the register.

The rifle was out of the box for some reason... whether Mr. Crawford removed it prior to the video footage or not is irrelevant. He DID grab it without a moment's hesitation and proceed around the perimeter of the store, away from any register, holding it by the grip, waving it around carelessly, and then he stood in an area of the store fiddling with it (which would appear to any observer at the time as an attempt to load the rifle). This is NOT NORMAL SHOPPING BEHAVIOR. Had he stayed in the sporting goods section with the rifle, no one would have given him a second glance. He went to a section of the store that was far away from where rifles of any type are on display... a section that was also right by a door.

The people who are claiming his behavior is totally normal and not cause for concern to anyone who observed it at the time are being 100% dishonest and making excuses to fit the story with their own agenda.

a reply to: Answer

(which would appear to any observer at the time as an attempt to load the rifle).

How?
He was holding it with one had and talking on the phone with the other, how could that be seen as loading the rifle?
To say any observer would see this as him trying to load the rifle a very dishonest statement.

Agreed he did not have normal shopping behavior, BUT THAT DOES NOT CALL FOR DEATH! ( I found the caps lock key too)

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Answer

(which would appear to any observer at the time as an attempt to load the rifle).

How?
He was holding it with one had and talking on the phone with the other, how could that be seen as loading the rifle?
To say any observer would see this as him trying to load the rifle a very dishonest statement.

Agreed he did not have normal shopping behavior, BUT THAT DOES NOT CALL FOR DEATH! ( I found the caps lock key too)

You clearly didn't watch the entire video. I suggest you take another look from 33 seconds to 1:10 so you'll stop looking like you're making things up. He turns the rifle upside down, sideways, appears to use both hands on it at one point, and he shoulders it several times.

I add caps for emphasis, not to shout like a fool while making a claim that has nothing to do with what's being presented.

a reply to: Answer

I watched the video, and the part you are talking about does not look like him loading it anymore then it just looks like him just inspecting it.

So if i use caps it is a fool shouting but if you do it is just emphasis? Strange how that works.

And the claim of him not deserving to die is 100% relevant to what is being presented

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Answer

I watched the video, and the part you are talking about does not look like him loading it anymore then it just looks like him just inspecting it.

So if i use caps it is a fool shouting but if you do it is just emphasis? Strange how that works.

And the claim of him not deserving to die is 100% relevant to what is being presented

You made a statement followed by exclamation points, that is shouting. But now we're arguing idiotic semantics.

Yet again, you're looking at this with your own bias. If you saw that exact scene in the pet food section as it happened, would you automatically think "oh he's just hanging out in the dog food section... without a cart... 'inspecting' a realistic air rifle that's out of the box..."???

No, you wouldn't. No rational person would. You would see a "man with a gun." His back is turned so it is impossible to distinguish between "inspecting" and "loading." You're arguing this case with the luxury of hindsight so the points you're making are irrelevant to what actually occurred.

people keep saying he only has himself to blame, and he is dumb because he held a toy gun by the grip, but how many of you would honestly consider the possibility of a squad of police appearing and quickly shooting you over a toy gun you picked up in that store?

I honestly wouldn't expect it to happen to me over an item I picked up there, and when they did appear i'd probably have the a moment of disbelief that prevents me from dropping it in the extremely short window they gave the guy.

originally posted by: Answer
There's more of that dishonesty. You act like him holding an airgun that is an EXACT LIFE-SIZE replica of a real firearm by its grip is not relevant to the case. It is EVERYTHING to this case. Stop making excuses.

That's because it's not. We have replica guns all over the place. Walmart sells them. Walmart also sells real guns. Ohio (where this happened) is an open carry state. Even if it were a real gun the man wasn't doing anything illegal. I could understand if the cops made a legitimate error in judgment, such things happen when replicas are involved. The problem is that the cops didn't spend any time to analyze the situation. They got there and opened fire within seconds. There was no verification of the facts and there was no attempt to talk the man down. The cops entered the door and a few seconds later there was a body.

Police have the responsibility to shoot if necessary. That also means they have the responsibility to get a proper handle on the situation. They did not do their due diligence and as a result a man is dead.

I don't blame the cops so much as I blame our current training of them, incidents like this are proof that we're doing something wrong.

a reply to: Answer

Please tell me how I am being "dishonest"? Everything I wrote as a statement was the truth! And everything that I speculated on, included wording to that effect. I only offered an opinion as to why he was wandering through various departments.

In the video clip, I did not see an associate in the Sporting Goods Dept. SO, he couldn't have been observed, as you said. And in all of the gun shops that I have been in, it's only the guns that are behind the counter, that would require assistance from a store employee. And, many shops have assorted rifles in floor carousels and wall racks that could be accessed and handled without direct supervision. Also, I believe the clip included any and all footage of the deceased, so removing the rifle from the packaging, wouldn't have been done by him.

If his intention was to shoplift the rifle, as some have insinuated,, why would he attract so much attention, by playing with it for so long, before the LEOs showed up? All I saw, was his curiosity in the rifle's operation.

And, a "former Marine" should know that "loading bullets" into that style of weapon, would involve inserting a pre-loaded magazine into the mag well, and cycling the action or bolt carrier group!

The whole thing reeks of asinine decisions by ALL involved! Culpability though, should ultimately rest with law enforcement. For it is their job, to assess whether a crime has been, or is about to be committed! And, THEN and ONLY THEN, should the appropriate action be taken!

I saw neither in the OP's video clip.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Answer
There's more of that dishonesty. You act like him holding an airgun that is an EXACT LIFE-SIZE replica of a real firearm by its grip is not relevant to the case. It is EVERYTHING to this case. Stop making excuses.

That's because it's not. We have replica guns all over the place. Walmart sells them. Walmart also sells real guns. Ohio (where this happened) is an open carry state. Even if it were a real gun the man wasn't doing anything illegal.

I suggest you look up the definition of brandishing. Open carry laws do not permit people to handle a firearm the way he was handling it.

Several people have brought up the open carry laws but they don't allow brandishing. There's a difference.

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
a reply to: Answer

Please tell me how I am being "dishonest"? Everything I wrote as a statement was the truth! And everything that I speculated on, included wording to that effect. I only offered an opinion as to why he was wandering through various departments.

Because your statements weren't factual. Stores don't let you wander around with a rifle in order to inspect it. That is what you implied is "normal for a customer to do before purchasing" and that is a false statement. You can't pick up a firearm at Cabela's or Bass Pro and walk around the store with it so it is not normal shopping behavior, regardless the type of store. Again, had he stayed there at the display and "inspected" the rifle, no one would have payed him any attention. Instead, he decided to walk all over the store with it and stand around for over 8 minutes in a section that is far away from the area where a reasonable person would expect to see a man handling a rifle.

originally posted by: Answer
I suggest you look up the definition of brandishing. Open carry laws do not permit people to handle a firearm the way he was handling it.

Several people have brought up the open carry laws but they don't allow brandishing. There's a difference.

It doesn't matter. The officers did not do their jobs in trying to analyze the situation and talk the suspect down. They went in guns blazing.

Check the video for yourself. 8:26:52 the cops get in position. 8:26:57 the man is put down.

Can we agree that 5 seconds is not nearly enough time for the cops to get to a scene, analyze the situation, identify themselves, and give a suspect who was totally unaware of their presence time to surrender?

No group of soldiers in a war zone where they are actually under fire would be given that much latitude it's absurd to say it's ok from our police officers.

a reply to: Answer

You're arguing this case with the luxury of hindsight so the points you're making are irrelevant to what actually occurred.

Two way street on that statement there pal, your loading statement is in hindsight as well so I guess that is just as irrelevant.
Your right I would assume I see a man with a gun, and if i lived in an open carry state, it probably wouldn't have been the first time.

You made a statement followed by exclamation points, that is shouting. But now we're arguing idiotic semantics.

Absolutely agreed, thanks for clearing up that one exclamation indicates shouting while a period does not tho

a reply to: Answer

You are delusional.

Please stop insulting everyone else's intelligence. We all have eyes.

You obviously feel that if you say "he raised the rifle" or "he was trying to load it" or "the cops warned him" then it'll eventually be true.

You're like a drunk guy at the party who keeps screaming out that someone stole his pants when he's obviously still wearing them...and everyone can see that, and laughs, except that this isn't funny at all.
To reiterate, people have eyes sir.

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