It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 18
82
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

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.



As I said, I didn't "imply" anything! Just because you inferred something that wasn't implied, doesn't make me a liar! Do you know what they say about people who make assumptions?

And, if there was no one in sporting goods to take his money, where is he supposed to make his purchase? Are you implying that anyone who wants to buy a pellet rifle in a Wal-Mart, cannot buy any other item at the same time and must proceed immediately to the nearest checkout? That would be absurd...And, I know that I have made hundreds of purchases from wally world without the use of a shopping cart. And it is not always a single item, either.

The FACT is that no one will ever know what he would have done with the gun, AFTER he completed his phone call. And, if an item, such as the pellet rifle, is not in a locked case, such as actual firearms, electronics, jewelry and other isolated merchandise for sale in big box dept. stores, then there is no case that you can make, that would make his actions seem abnormal. Bass Pro, and others have their own store policies regarding firearm purchases. This was NOT a firearm, so you're talking apples and oranges there...It's irrelevant.

And, unless he actually tried to conceal the item and/or exit the building, his intentions could ONLY be construed as a customer preparing to purchase said item. Period!




posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   

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.
edit on 9/26/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt

originally posted by: Answer

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.



As I said, I didn't "imply" anything! Just because you inferred something that wasn't implied, doesn't make me a liar! Do you know what they say about people who make assumptions?



You said:


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


So what were you not implying, again?

Care to tell some more lies to cover your incorrect statements? I'm sure you can keep digging that hole.

His behavior was not normal for someone who intends to purchase a rifle, whether it be an air rifle or a firearm. All the other facts of this case aside, his careless behavior led to his death because he made people believe he was a "man with a gun" and not a "man inspecting an air rifle in the sporting goods section."



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Again...YOU are the one, and apparently the only one, who seems to have an issue with what he was doing and where he was doing it!

He was in a store. Checking out merchandise that the store had for sale, in the store. We don't know what else he intended to buy while he was in the store. And, therefore we don't know what other depts. he would have visited, while carrying his waiting-to-be-purchased item with him.

Just because you think a guy talking on the phone while fidgeting with his sporting goods in the pet section, is not normal, does not make me a liar! If I encountered someone doing the exact same thing that he was doing, in my local walmart, I'd probably offer him some assistance! And, I'm not even in an open carry state!

Would it be wrong to assume that liberal propaganda regarding "evil firearms", may have crept it's way into your psyche?



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Here is an older video from the day after the shooting in which LeeCee Johnson, the mother of Crawford's children, tells how she could hear him say it isn't real before being shot. This is strangely absent from the narrative being told now about how he had no time to react nor was told to put down the gun.

wdtn.com...



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Maybe if people would stop replying to "Answer" he would finally give up on his attempts to do nothing but troll is thread?

He obviously has his opinion that Mr. Crawford got exactly what he deserved. No one will change his mind and no one can tell him any different. He sees what he wants to see and the majority of us see a man being executed by police for holding a toy gun and not reacting within milliseconds to their commands...




posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck

I have not had time to go through them yet, but here you go, all the public record documents have been released.
www.whio.com...



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

I downloaded and read the first officer statement posted on that list at your link. I got to the part where he states, "after repeated commands to drop the weapon..."

And then I closed it out and don't have the stomach to read any more.
edit on 26-9-2014 by CoherentlyConfused because: Fixed quoted part from statement

edit on 26-9-2014 by CoherentlyConfused because: Ugh, typo



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
a reply to: Ahabstar

I downloaded and read the first officer statement posted on that list at your link. I got to the part where he states, "after reapated commands to drop the weapon..."

And then I closed it out and don't have the stomach to read any more.


Exactly!

If I was in a similar position as the officer that you quoted, I would hope to God that if I was about to take a man's life for failing to heed my commands, that I would remember the EXACT amount of times that I gave him a chance to... SMDH


edit on 9/26/2014 by GoOfYFoOt because: text



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: lovebeck
Maybe if people would stop replying to "Answer" he would finally give up on his attempts to do nothing but troll is thread?

He obviously has his opinion that Mr. Crawford got exactly what he deserved. No one will change his mind and no one can tell him any different. He sees what he wants to see and the majority of us see a man being executed by police for holding a toy gun and not reacting within milliseconds to their commands...



Getting people to follow the facts of a case instead of screaming "the police are murderers!!!" with little to no information is trolling? I thought the whole mantra of this site is "deny ignorance." Apparently, you are only interested in denying ignorance when it's not in line with your personal opinion.

I've said several times that he didn't deserve to be shot. Saying he is responsible for it is not the same as saying he deserved it. Keep repeating that line to try to attack my character instead of sticking to the facts of the case... it makes you look very well-suited to a debate.

You and your ilk are the ones seeing what they want to see. You accepted the media version of the story before analyzing the video so when you watch it, you're doing so with bias and claiming that it validates what you've already decided. The grand jury decided that the video indicates no wrongdoing by the police. There's your opinion and there's the facts. They aren't the same.

There have been repeated attempts by people in this thread to sensationalize the situation, ignore the facts, make claims that are untrue, and to justify their opinion by pretending that Mr. Crawford did nothing abnormal. It's pathetic, really.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
a reply to: Ahabstar

I downloaded and read the first officer statement posted on that list at your link. I got to the part where he states, "after repeated commands to drop the weapon..."

And then I closed it out and don't have the stomach to read any more.


That's right... ignore the facts that don't conform with your opinion.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
a reply to: Answer

Again...YOU are the one, and apparently the only one, who seems to have an issue with what he was doing and where he was doing it!



Well, me and the people at the store at the time that dialed 911 to report a man with a gun...

If walking around WalMart with an out-of-package gun was normal behavior, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

I quoted exactly from the officer's statement.

Not sure how I ignored any facts of anything, only that from what I saw, the officers gave him exactly zero chances to do to anything.

Unless you have a video clearly showing any of these officers "repeatedly" commanding him to drop his weapon? Because from the video I watched, that didn't happen. If you have such a video, I will gladly watch and redact my statement if I am shown to be wrong.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
a reply to: Answer

I quoted exactly from the officer's statement.

Not sure how I ignored any facts of anything, only that from what I saw, the officers gave him exactly zero chances to do to anything.

Unless you have a video clearly showing any of these officers "repeatedly" commanding him to drop his weapon? Because from the video I watched, that didn't happen. If you have such a video, I will gladly watch and redact my statement if I am shown to be wrong.


The video had no actual audio, only the muffled background noise in the 911 dispatcher's recording so whatever you heard or didn't hear was not completely accurate.

Considering that the grand jury had all the facts, and not just this one YouTube video, I'll side with their decision.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

Considering that the grand jury had all the facts, and not just this one YouTube video, I'll side with their decision.


And considering the Justice Department has decided to open an independent investigation I'd say the facts aren't as clear as you're making them.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
I think the Feds should review for grand jury rigging.... it's very possible after seeing the video and reading the police report that someone has manipulated the grand jury.... or just maybe the jury consisted of retired cops protecting their brotherhood — sticking together.
edit on 26-9-2014 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: FraggleRock

originally posted by: Answer

Considering that the grand jury had all the facts, and not just this one YouTube video, I'll side with their decision.


And considering the Justice Department has decided to open an independent investigation I'd say the facts aren't as clear as you're making them.


This thread would be much better if people didn't jump to conclusions.


The U.S. Department of Justice said it will review the facts and circumstances surrounding the shooting. Crawford’s family has sought a federal investigation to see whether race was a factor. Crawford was black, and the officers are white.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the U.S. attorney’s office for the southern district of Ohio and the FBI will conduct the inquiry.

The agencies said they will “conduct a thorough and independent review of the evidence and take appropriate action if the evidence indicates a prosecutable violation of federal criminal civil-rights statutes.”

Jennifer Thornton, spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Carter M. Stewart, said federal officials planned to investigate Crawford’s shooting “regardless of the state proceedings.”


Source

Don't let the facts get in the way of your assertions...



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Which assertions would that be?

Is the Justice Department investigating or not?



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: FraggleRock
a reply to: Answer

Which assertions would that be?

Is the Justice Department investigating or not?


Your statement was that the justice department has decided to open an investigation and you imply that this is indicative of the facts not being clear cut. The justice department was going to investigate regardless because the family is pushing the race issue.

Notice the statement "conduct a thorough and independent review of the evidence and take appropriate action if the evidence indicates a prosecutable violation of federal criminal civil-rights statutes.”

The DOJ is investigating to satisfy all involved because the race card was pulled. Don't read so much into it.
edit on 9/26/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
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.



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join