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

originally posted by: Domo1

originally posted by: Helious

I don't have an attachment to LEOs. I have an attachment to rational thought instead of "burn em at the stake!" herd mentality that's so common here.

Rational thought would tell you that instead of pissing in your pants like an 8 year old girl at the sight of a BB gun and killing innocent people on the word of somebody you don't know who called 911 with unknown intentions, you instead may do some actual police work.

Or, in the place of rational thought, you can just kill people indiscriminately and then hide behind a badge like the coward that your are.

I think the police were in the wrong here, but that BB gun is not a toy and it doesn't look like one. I really freaking hope everyone here would call the cops if they saw someone inside a store dicking around with what looks like a real gun.

It also shouldn't matter what a 911 caller says. The police have to deal with tons of ridiculous calls. "There's an alien shooting people with a ray gun!", "My neighbor just proved he was a reptillian Jew, I saw him blink both eyes!". Stop talking about the 911 caller. The police should have known better, because 911 callers are idiots half the time. I'm AGREEING the cops were in the wrong, but so many people don't seem to get WHY.

Those two talking points aren't important.

They screwed up royally.

That's on the police, not on the caller, not on the gun, it's just on the officer(s) who shot first and gave no time for a surrender.

I want to agree with people but you guys aren't acting like the police in question aren't 100% culpable. THEY ARE. This isn't about the freaking gun or it's realism (and I would shoot someone that pointed a neon green gun at me), it's not about the caller (who should have no influence over police procedure). It's about the responding officer(s) that screwed up royally.

Pissing in your pants at the sight of a BB gun my ass. They were obviously wrong, but if that thing was pointed at me I would shoot too. It doesn't look like "just a BB gun". The other day when I was at a gunshop there was a pretty pink revolver.

Quit arguing stupid points. I agree the cop(s) were in the wrong, but so many people are just making idiotic statements. Are you really going to say that if I paint the tip of my guns orange the police should treat them like toys? LOL, just joking, AR-15 flash suppressor is orange so it's not real.

I think everyone knows why the cops were in the wrong.

They were in the wrong because they went in shooting first and asking questions later.

They were in the wrong because they could have handled the situation in a different manner than in the one they did.

Also the guy never once pointed the gun at anyone in the duration of the video.

The cops basically shot him because the guy reacted naturally and turned in the direction of a person that yelled at him.

a reply to: Domo1

Again, it WAS A PELLET GUN. Not a BB gun!

Sorry to get so "all caps" about it, it's just important to note that it was a toy pellet gun, not even a BB gun...

originally posted by: lovebeck
a reply to: Domo1

Again, it WAS A PELLET GUN. Not a BB gun!

Sorry to get so "all caps" about it, it's just important to note that it was a toy pellet gun, not even a BB gun...

In my world, I'm old, BB guns were less dangerous than pellet guns. Pellet guns took a little metal pellet which was larger than a small BB that went in a BB gun. There were also BB/Pellet guns that excepted both!

In general pellet guns are more powerful than BB guns. Ask anyone from Germany how powerful a pellet gun is. They are just about as powerful as a 22 cal.

So I can see there is even confusion on what some of call a pellet gun.

Are you referring to like an airsoft type gun?

EDIT: I also just went to Walmarts website and entered "pellet gun" into their search engine. You might be surprised at how real looking some of these pellet guns look.........

This dude was just doing some other shopping after he picked up the pellet rifle.

The 911 caller should be tried for murder and the scumbag cops who murdered this dude should all be sent to death row where they belong. This is just ridiculous. REDICULOUS

a reply to: Answer

They round the corner and see him standing there with the rifle. They yell, the muzzle starts to come up, they assume he's going to fire so they shoot him. Police have no requirement to wait until they're fired upon.

I notice that you keep ignoring mine and other posts which point out the fact this approach gave the suspect no chance for survival. It seems to me that you think police should not have to risk their lives at all, that they should be able to take innocent life if it means their is no threat to their own life. These are just coward officers with coward tactics, willing to kill innocent people at the drop of the hat because they don't want to take on the risk their occupation entails.

I found it interesting, to say the least, that WDTN.com (Dayton, Ohio news channel) used this screen shot on the front page of its website when "reporting" on the story about the cops not being indicted:



Of all the screen shots they could have posted, if they even needed to post one from that video, they choose this? Seems a bit biased to me IMHO.

Link to the site: WDTN

a reply to: seeker1963

Those pellet guns pack a real punch. Great for frightening bears away from what I hear.

They handled it completely wrong. No reason to go in like. I know it's heat of the moment and the manager reacted by calling the police, but....don't people watch these security cameras in real time? Shouldn't someone have noted there's a person with a pellet gun he picked up from the shelf?

What happened is also Walmart's fault. Leaving a gun out, lapse in security or whatever. Someone's dead. Not good.

a reply to: lovebeck

Good catch. This is how the media works. They all work together to smear someone. Shooting a guy in a store like that is the end of the line for America. We can go no further like this.

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: Answer

Well if only you had been there, the situation would have been handled properly right?

Yeah like I havent heard that before here at ATS>

Their positions behind the shelves left them open to fire. Police know this, you apparently don't.

It's a defensive position. They knew exactly what to do to protect themselves.

You said earlier in one of you previous and NOTE now edited reply.

Watch closely and you see the muzzle coming up as he turns toward the police.

Then you post

I did not say "he points the rifle at the officers." I said "the muzzle starts to come up." That's all it takes because if you wait for the rifle to be fully pointed, it's too late.

I can see why they questioned you.

Ok, let me break it down barney style since I'm going to be picked apart:

The muzzle rises away from the floor as his head turns to the left.
Is that better? Is that clear enough to avoid anymore corrections about the definition of my statement? His BODY didn't turn toward the cops and the rifle wasn't pointed AT the police. They didn't wait for that to happen because it's way too late by then.

A store shelf is a defensive position? Why don't you go shoot a rifle at some store shelves and tell me how that works out. There is a difference between cover and concealment... self-defense 101.

a reply to: lovebeck

I also live in the area. I also drive around all day and heard many interviews with several attorneys both involved and tried similar cases.

Something to keep in mind was that the Ferguson riots were still on going when this happened. Many in the media pounced on this story with that angle in mind. One of the blessing and curses of freedom of the press is that the press will present a story with a bias, often times to fit a narrative.

The prosecuting attorney for this case said in an interview after the grand jury returned their verdict was that the defense pointed out in the video that Crawford bent his knees as he turned to face the police and the muzzle was rising up. The officers reacted to that motion as an aggressive "Readying" motion. He further added that he praised the officer (the one with the long gun) for not firing when he disappeared behind the end of aisle, got up and moved towards the officer again before dropping to the floor to surrender.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: seeker1963

Those pellet guns pack a real punch. Great for frightening bears away from what I hear.

They handled it completely wrong. No reason to go in like. I know it's heat of the moment and the manager reacted by calling the police, but....don't people watch these security cameras in real time? Shouldn't someone have noted there's a person with a pellet gun he picked up from the shelf?

What happened is also Walmart's fault. Leaving a gun out, lapse in security or whatever. Someone's dead. Not good.

That's the ticket, let's blame everybody except for the moron waving a gun around in a public place. Seriously?

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Answer

They round the corner and see him standing there with the rifle. They yell, the muzzle starts to come up, they assume he's going to fire so they shoot him. Police have no requirement to wait until they're fired upon.

I notice that you keep ignoring mine and other posts which point out the fact this approach gave the suspect no chance for survival. It seems to me that you think police should not have to risk their lives at all, that they should be able to take innocent life if it means their is no threat to their own life. These are just coward officers with coward tactics, willing to kill innocent people at the drop of the hat because they don't want to take on the risk their occupation entails.

What the hell are you talking about?

Police do not intentionally put themselves in front of a person with a gun, EVER. They are not required or expected to wait for someone to SHOOT AT THEM before they do anything about it. I can't believe you actually posted that.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: lovebeck

I also live in the area. I also drive around all day and heard many interviews with several attorneys both involved and tried similar cases.

Something to keep in mind was that the Ferguson riots were still on going when this happened. Many in the media pounced on this story with that angle in mind. One of the blessing and curses of freedom of the press is that the press will present a story with a bias, often times to fit a narrative.

The prosecuting attorney for this case said in an interview after the grand jury returned their verdict was that the defense pointed out in the video that Crawford bent his knees as he turned to face the police and the muzzle was rising up. The officers reacted to that motion as an aggressive "Readying" motion. He further added that he praised the officer (the one with the long gun) for not firing when he disappeared behind the end of aisle, got up and moved towards the officer again before dropping to the floor to surrender.

Stop posting your facts and logic, nobody here wants to hear it.

a reply to: Answer

It's common sense. The police handled it incorrectly and Walmart didn't seem to be vigilant in this matter.

a reply to: seeker1963

That's what I call a pellet gun and I am thinking that is what he had, the air soft type of gun. I'd sure like to know what it was, exactly, that he had in his hands. I know about BB guns, regular guns but not the difference between an air soft gun and a pellet gun.

Would an air soft type of gun be considered a toy? Tia!

a reply to: Answer

Simple question: Do you believe that kid 'deserved' to die?

a reply to: lovebeck

BBs are either metal or plastic and can hurt you if it hits the eye, ear or sensitive part of the body. A pellet gun is usually a metal pellet that impacts with a pretty strong punch. I'm pretty certain it can be lethal.

a reply to: lovebeck

I am really not familiar with airsoft guns other than what I have heard or read about them. To be honest I don't even know what one would look like.

I know they are a fun thing for the younger crowd to play with.........so I've heard.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Answer

They round the corner and see him standing there with the rifle. They yell, the muzzle starts to come up, they assume he's going to fire so they shoot him. Police have no requirement to wait until they're fired upon.

I notice that you keep ignoring mine and other posts which point out the fact this approach gave the suspect no chance for survival. It seems to me that you think police should not have to risk their lives at all, that they should be able to take innocent life if it means their is no threat to their own life. These are just coward officers with coward tactics, willing to kill innocent people at the drop of the hat because they don't want to take on the risk their occupation entails.

What the hell are you talking about?

Police do not intentionally put themselves in front of a person with a gun, EVER. They are not required or expected to wait for someone to SHOOT AT THEM before they do anything about it. I can't believe you actually posted that.

They are however required to identify themselves as police and give the suspect a chance to respond. They waited a fraction of a second before shooting, he had not even fully turned to face them as the video shows and as the autopsy report shows. The police should have to risk their lives to the degree necessary to ensure they aren't just shooting at innocent people, as was the case here. The way they handled it gave the suspect no chance. He was dead the moment police were called, and yet you continue to defend such a ridiculous tactic. You know it's wrong, just let go of your ego and admit the truth.

a reply to: Answer

Yeah, heaven forbid an actual threat arise before police gun someone down. It's a shame the rest of us must be faced with a direct and imminent threat before we're allowed to employ deadly force for our protection.