Kroger Follows Walmart

a reply to: TheRedneck

Have you seen the video? He did not raise the gun at all. Not for several seconds before they entered and not after. They didn't tell him to drop it. They said "put it down" The police claimed they gave him multiple commands but they did not. The police also said he raised the gun and turned towards them but it turned out to be false when they veiwed the footage.

If you aren't familiar with real gun etiquette you aren't going to think a toy you just picked up in the toy aisle needs to be halstered or slung or carried at ready just in case someone calls the cops. That's silly. Besides no one can ever know what someone else will think looks like a weapon. That's a common "mistake" for phones, wallets, sticks, and all sorts.

What does a jar looking like a gun have to do with it? You are the one who said if someone gives an order you would do it in under two seconds.

Folllow along. You are holding something, you are not expecting the cops because you aren't committing a crime, along comes some cops from behind you and they tell you to "put it down." You haven't even turned around to see if the person shouting is wearing a uniform. So either you aren't thinking "hey why would I put this jar down' and you immediately drop the jar, or you concede that I am correct that it takes more than 2 seconds to realize someone is actually asking you to put down what you are holding whether you or anyone else somewhere at some time might on the odd Friday think it is a real weapon.
After all the police don't have the luxury to determine what your holding when you turn around with something in your hands.

And of course the caller started all this but the police are adults and supposedly "highly" trained and lied in their report and people are still saying Crawford deserved it because he wasn't carrying a toy as if it was real.

a reply to: rickymouse


Bang your dead! In Rednecks scenario. It takes longer than 2 seconds for that maneuver which could easily be misconstrued as an aggressive stance.

a reply to: rickymouse

You don't want to drop the gun, it could go off. You put it down gently on the floor or whatever, in plain view of the cops, making sure not to face it their way. Gun goes off by dropping it, cops seem to shoot.

Point well taken.

In my case, I had a S&W Model 66 .357 Magnum stainless steel revolver. There was a nice patch of grass just off to my side and I did not have the gun cocked at the time. A nice easy toss gently into the grass. Being stainless, I didn't have to worry about it getting a little wet.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Identified


They can "ask"...but can they actually stop people from carrying?

It's private property, so they can stop you from carrying anything they want, and if you refuse to abide by their rules then they can eject you, and you have no legal or constitutional recourse.

This is called freedom. This is their house, so it's their rules. Like a restaurant barring entry to people wearing sandles, or a private pool saying no speedos.

originally posted by: Purpapengus
a reply to: Identified

What if this is the "new" way to get around gun laws? Stores stop selling guns, ask open carry stop, and eliminate any reference to weapons. The Second Amendment is still intact but good luck fulfilling it.

You can always shop somewhere else... like you can use a different web browser... and a different video playing site... and a different online ordering company...

this is called market forces, it's part of being a free, market lead capitalist country. capitalist

These stores see that their customers are afraid of gun violence and they are responding by doing something that makes them feel safer. Just like they would stock more sweaters if their customers felt cold.

Would you deny a store the right to respond to customer demand?

The second amendment is still intact, and this will simply open up the market to dedicated gun stores. Small independent gun stores have been harmed by these large stores selling generic guns at rubber prices. Pushing quality down. Now small gun stores with quality products Wil have a fair crack again with the mega corporations out of the market.

originally posted by: Purpapengus
a reply to: Identified

What if this is the "new" way to get around gun laws? Stores stop selling guns, ask open carry stop, and eliminate any reference to weapons. The Second Amendment is still intact but good luck fulfilling it.

You can always shop somewhere else... like you can use a different web browser... and a different video playing site... and a different online ordering company...

this is called market forces, it's part of being a free, market lead capitalist country. capitalist

These stores see that their customers are afraid of gun violence and they are responding by doing something that makes them feel safer. Just like they would stock more sweaters if their customers felt cold.

Would you deny a store the right to respond to customer demand?

The second amendment is still intact, and this will simply open up the market to dedicated gun stores. Small independent gun stores have been harmed by these large stores selling generic guns at rubber prices. Pushing quality down. Now small gun stores with quality products Wil have a fair crack again with the mega corporations out of the market.

a reply to: Identified

Have you seen the video?

Actually no. I haven't. I only entered the conversation to point out that it is quite possible to safely dispose of a weapon in the time span we are discussing, not to debate the merits of a particular case. I really have no interest in the particular case, as there is enough uncertainty in the descriptions I have read in this thread to convince me that it is likely not a blatant act of power abuse. If I am wrong about that, I am wrong. But my point is that I have been in a similar situation; I would bet good money you never have.

If you aren't familiar with real gun etiquette you aren't going to think a toy you just picked up in the toy aisle needs to be halstered or slung or carried at ready just in case someone calls the cops. That's silly.

No, that's not silly... that's the problem. Yes, everyone should be familiar with gun etiquette... back before mass shootings became a national pastime, people were. Maybe, just maybe, that could be the reason?

I'm genuinely curious why you think it might not be.

What does a jar looking like a gun have to do with it?

You brought them up, not me.

And of course the caller started all this but the police are adults and supposedly "highly" trained and lied in their report and people are still saying Crawford deserved it because he wasn't carrying a toy as if it was real.

Had my son waved a toy gun around, I would have beat his butt and taken the gun away. Why? Because I don't want him to wind up like this Crawford fellow. That's exactly what I am talking about. You say "I don't like guns so I'm never going near one" when in reality you will go near one. I promise you, every day you meet someone who is packing. You may not know it, but you do. It's one thing to say I don't want a gun; I can respect that. But it's another to purposely cultivate ignorance of a device that exists and is pretty plentiful, putting yourself in danger over some ideology that says you wish they didn't exist.

It is your right, of course, but if one exercises that right, then one accepts the consequences. Do i feel sorry for this Crawford? Sure, of course! No one deserves to die over such a situation. But do I absolve him of all guilt? No, because he purposely placed himself in that situation through a refusal to use forethought.

I also do not say he deserved anything. I only state that he ignored reality, as you seem to be doing, and thus placed himself in danger. It is really no different than playing in traffic because you believe cars should be able to stop immediately. They can't, and it will likely be a fatal encounter that could be avoided.

I also think the recent phenomenon of allowing people to make anonymous complaints needs to end. It is far too easy for some goody-two-shoes with a save-the-world complex to make a quick phone call and instigate something like this. In a perfect world, the caller would be publicly identified and tried for conspiracy to commit homicide. I don't know who came up with the idea of allowing people to instigate violent responses from officials with total impunity and anonymity, but they need to have their head examined.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AaarghZombies

It's private property, so they can stop you from carrying anything they want, and if you refuse to abide by their rules then they can eject you, and you have no legal or constitutional recourse.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I see nothing excluding private businesses in there. Do you?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So, you said he ”raised" the gun instead of dropping it even though you aren't familiar with the case?

I believe if more people became familiar with guns they would be less scared but I don't think everyone should have to if they don't want to. That's part of freedom. I also don't believe anymore people in the past were familiar than they are today. I also don't see how carrying a toy as if it were real would make it less scary for someone who is scared of guns or less likely you get shot by police.

I didn't compare a jar to a revolver - you did. I simply use the jar as something you might possibly have in your hand. And as I pointed out anything can be seen as dangerous if you are instructed to drop it and don't and police don't know what it is because of angle or darkness.

I don't know if you have confused me with someone else or are using the universal "you"

You say "I don't like guns so I'm never going near one" when in reality you will go near one.

But I am a concealed carry permit holder and I am in no way scared of guns or don't like them or whatever.

I don't blame Crawford and this situation was nothing like playing in traffic thinking cars can stop. This is like playing with Tonka trucks and some idiot lies and tells 911 your chasing children in the park with an excavator and the police respond by running you over in the sand pit.


And that was my entire point. Here we had an incident years ago where some scared man calls 911 and lies and gets a man killed in a Walmart and nothing has changed. Now stores are enabling folks to be scared of any open carry.

The case of Crawford the caller thought he was a hero and outed himself. Then the videos proved he lied and he lawyered up.

They thought about charging him but in the end nothing came of it. The federal trial against the cops for wrongful death is currently underway but Walmart has testified it wasn't on them because Ritchie (the 911 caller) lied.

Incidentally another woman died from a heart attack when running from the gun shots.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Private businesses that do considerable business with EBT cards, plum deals with cities and states on tax incentives and more than a few federal deals as well. One company has a majority of its inventory made in China and donates political funding to quite a few that have been rabidly spewing “Trade War With China” as a Pavlovian response to the word tariff. I could point out that duties and tariffs funded this country rather well on a more or less balanced until the income tax was ratified in direct conflict to specific powers of the government and they fact that both things seem have the same letter in parentheses.

The other one is thought of as a small grocery chain local to the Cincinnati area. They are the largest supermarket chain in the US and second to Walmart for retail chain. Wikipedia I mean I knew they were big, and some of the other store names, but didn’t know about all the dairy plants they own. Even the old IGA contracts are on their last legs.

a reply to: Identified

He was a real 1-percenter.

(ok, I'll show myself out)

a reply to: Identified

Unreal.
I’d almost rather know someone is legally carrying a gun in case someone decides to go full Jihad in there.

originally posted by: whywhynot
Well just too happy to add them to my “no go” list. Mom and Pops that love America are for me.

You will still go lol.

originally posted by: Macenroe82
a reply to: Identified

Unreal.
I’d almost rather know someone is legally carrying a gun in case someone decides to go full Jihad in there.

el paso shooter was legally carrying

a reply to: Identified

Kroger has demonstrated with our actions that we recognize the growing chorus of Americans who are no longer comfortable with the status quo and who are advocating for concrete and common sense gun reforms.

common sense would be to ban gun free zones because that is where the highest death tolls usually occur. Since no legal open carrier has ever caused a problem in their store, or any store I am aware of, how can this possibly be common sense?
Am I the only American no longer comfortable with gun free zones creating mass shootings?

a reply to: Theyy

He didn't have a rifle and he openly carrying a holstered pistol into the store?

So let me get this right, if open carry was not allowed at the Walmart at the time then there would not have been a massacre there?

originally posted by: Theyy

originally posted by: whywhynot
Well just too happy to add them to my “no go” list. Mom and Pops that love America are for me.

You will still go lol.

originally posted by: Macenroe82
a reply to: Identified

Unreal.
I’d almost rather know someone is legally carrying a gun in case someone decides to go full Jihad in there.

el paso shooter was legally carrying

do you know how many crazy folks have shot up placed with "assault weapons" since 1982 in the US?

Actually, if you intend to shoot up a place, you are not legally carrying.

Kinda like if you plan to rob a liquor store, then you are not paying customer.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Interesting, I had no idea you had such a big problem with skels in Alaska.

Not nearly that bad in the "countryside" Walmarts in Texas. I guess because other than the local grocery chain, HEB, there is no where else to buy sundries.

The Texas "city" Walmarts are sketchy in proportion to their location distance from 'da hood.

a reply to: Identified

I believe if more people became familiar with guns they would be less scared but I don't think everyone should have to if they don't want to. That's part of freedom.

Absolutely it is part of freedom, but freedom is not free. There are consequences to freedom. For example, I am free to tell someone my political views, although in many areas of the country those views might get me beat up. If I want to exercise that freedom in that location, I can... but there might be a consequence.

I also don't believe anymore people in the past were familiar than they are today.

That is literally self-evident to me.

I also don't see how carrying a toy as if it were real would make it less scary for someone who is scared of guns or less likely you get shot by police.

Do you not understand that a cop who has been told by their dispatcher that they are responding to an armed potential shooter might be able to mistake a toy gun for a real one? Really? Just because you know it is a toy does not mean someone who sees you knows it is a toy. Your thoughts do not immediately transmit to everyone else around you.

I didn't compare a jar to a revolver - you did. I simply use the jar as something you might possibly have in your hand.

You were the one who used the jar thing. I simply said if I am holding something that looks like a weapon and I hear a command to "DROP IT!" I would be concerned that someone might be mistaking it for real and react accordingly. I pointed out that it is quite difficult for most people to mistake a jar of pickles for a gun.

I don't know if you have confused me with someone else or are using the universal "you"

But I am a concealed carry permit holder and I am in no way scared of guns or don't like them or whatever.

I am. I carry as well much of the time. I have had to put my revolver to a man's head before to protect myself. It's not a good feeling, and to this day I am thankful he decided to leave as fast as he did. I know what a gun can do, as I am sure the cops involved do.

Maybe "scared" is the wrong word... I prefer to say I "respect" a gun. If you are not aware of what a gun can do, you can not respect them. If you cannot respect them, you cannot handle them properly.

What I am not is terrified of a gun. It is a tool. My chainsaw could be used to do some major damage; I respect it, too. I respect my table saw... that thing can lop off a finger in a New York heartbeat. They are tools. I still use them, but I understand the risks of using them and respect them. You just proved my point above that people are not as familiar with and do not understand or respect guns like they did in the past.

What caliber do you carry? What grain bullet? What powder load? What bullet type? Do you know how large a hole it will punch through a given object? How much will it push a grown man backwards when you hit them? how much recoil does it produce? How many shots do you have before the gun is empty? I ask this all rhetorically; don't answer here. I ask because I can tell you that information about any weapon I own, and so could about everyone I grew up with. Today, I find very few people who can do so. "Duh, I dunno, it's a gun."

The person who called in the incident is terrified of a gun. They likely did not know anything about what they were calling in, and that is the problem.

And that was my entire point. Here we had an incident years ago where some scared man calls 911 and lies and gets a man killed in a Walmart and nothing has changed. Now stores are enabling folks to be scared of any open carry.

On that I will agree with you completely. The only real source of disagreement between us seems to be this one incident, and I will admit (have already admitted) I could be wrong. I simply said he should have reacted faster. Chances are, he was blissfully unaware that others might think he was holding a real gun. That was a fatal error in judgement.

The case of Crawford the caller thought he was a hero and outed himself. Then the videos proved he lied and he lawyered up.

They thought about charging him but in the end nothing came of it. The federal trial against the cops for wrongful death is currently underway but Walmart has testified it wasn't on them because Ritchie (the 911 caller) lied.

At least that's progress. I am amazed that the cops didn't protect Ritchie's identity with their lives, even though he outed himself.

You know, there's another amendment in the Bill of Rights that applies here: the 6th.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

How many times has a person been accused of a crime by an anonymous caller? How many people have been convicted without ever even knowing who it was that made that initial call? Quite a few in my experience, and it is completely unconstitutional. I don't blame him for lawyering up... he should be charged with conspiracy to commit homicide, because that is exactly what he did.

Incidentally another woman died from a heart attack when running from the gun shots.

OK, make that two counts of conspiracy to commit homicide.

All because he was likely terrified of a big mean gun. Do you see my point now?

TheRedneck

Nvm