Black Man Gunned Down By Police In Ohio Walmart While Shopping For Air Gun

[realibrad]

You cannot hide from the video. Why would you say this. Do we have different definitions of raising the barrel? I'll show you mine.

Before: 08:26:56:01
After : 08:26:56:13

After he raised the "gun", he was shot.

Are officers not trained to do this, is this not standard policy? Of course it is. They don't want to die and they are required to assume it's a real gun. They did not know intent, but when the barrel was raised they did not have time to ask why.

Who did he raise the gun to? Considering the cop came from the guys left side, the gun was never pointed at the cop. The cops are trained to shoot if the gun is pointed at someone, be it themselves or another. They are not trained to shoot when a gun is raised but not pointed at anyone. The cop was on edge because of the call, but that is not an excuse to shoot first and figure out what is going on later. To me, its a training issue. If you cannot stay calm, and you first reaction is to shoot, you need more training. Being a cop is dangerous, but that is apart of the job. Cops can't protect themselves 100%, and definitely cannot take actions to protect themselves at the public's expense. If they don't like that job, then quit.

 

[Jaskalas]

You claim suspects are allowed to raise guns.

Can anyone confirm this?

 

[Darwin333]

Fact: An innocent man was killed by the police.

Fact: The ONLY people to put the public in danger were the police when they fired their weapons in an occupied Walmart.

To say that the police did a good job or nothing wrong despite the above irrefutable facts is asinine.

 

[bradley]

Fact: An innocent man was killed by the police.

Fact: The ONLY people to put the public in danger were the police when they fired their weapons in an occupied Walmart.

To say that the police did a good job or nothing wrong despite the above irrefutable facts is asinine.

Police failed to identify themselves and secure the store. Period.

Witness as the police shoot across opened automatic doors with full access to the outside. Duh? Someone walks through the doors only fifteen seconds after the fatal shooting.

Collateral damage obviously didn't matter to them. Yet they were afraid John Crawford (while holding the rifle's butt in front of store shelves) would be in the position to discharge his weapon, much less into people.

Sorry but "Get down!" doesn't do it for me.... neither does, "Ice Cream Man! I have many different ices today! Get down!" I want to hear, "Police! Drop your weapon immediately or I shoot! Do it now!" You don't need to understand police procedure (which is specific to each state) for even a second to determine the absolute insanity of the entire clusterfuck.

 

[Linux23]

another black man hunted and dead. sad.

 

[bradley]

Police procedure varies between municipalities. Although the police training manual in Beavercreek Ohio is especially messed up according to the latest Salon article.

What killed John Crawford: How terrible police training is destroying America
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/26/ter..._and_a_lying_911_caller_killed_john_crawford/

But another reason the cops weren’t charged is the fact that they did exactly what they were trained to do, from authorities starting with Ohio’s Republican Attorney General Mike DeWine. The Guardian’s Jon Swaine got ahold of a Power Point used to train Beavercreek police officers, just two weeks before they killed Crawford, in what to do when faced with an “active shooter threat.”

It essentially tells them to shoot first – I’m sorry, I mean “engage” first — and ask questions later, as they did in Crawford’s case.

The training manual, “Single Officer Response to Active Shooter Threats: What to do when YOU are first on the scene,” emblazoned with DeWine’s name, boasts of the way police departments have changed their protocols when facing cases like Crawford’s.

From 1966 through 1999, the Power Point explains, “patrol officers respond by locating the shooter, containing the suspect, evacuating the area” and “notifying the SWAT team.” That sounds awfully soft on crime.

From there to 2008, the response was a little sharper, but it still emphasized “containment.”

Then in 2008, the approach shifted. Suddenly “officers are empowered to engage the active threat upon arrival,” without waiting for backup. It cites FBI studies showing that active shooter event normally last 3-4 minutes, but “average time per kill/injury is 15 seconds.” Clearly, officers have to act fast.

In case that message was lost on anyone, the presentation closed with two slides. One asked what the trainees would police to do in case of an active threat in a building “with the one I love the most:” Wait for backup, “or enter the building and engage the suspect as soon as possible.” Then came a photo of a teacher leading tiny children to safety at Sandy Hook in December, 2012.

Is it any wonder Beavercreek officer Sean Williams charged into Walmart, wearing protective gear, with his gun aimed at Crawford, who was talking on his cell phone and holding the toy gun at his side? A witness later said he heard the police “yell and shoot simultaneously.”

Yell and shoot simultaneously? Holy fuck. We'll they certain passed that test with flying bullets.

They also managed to kill two people with two bullets, which is a very efficient use of police resources.

The Beavercreek police are starting to sound more like a bunch of paranoid Barney Fife's with hair-triggers. Militarized police have begun to represent a larger threat than the actual criminals themselves. Stay home and lock your doors.

 

[realibrad]

You claim suspects are allowed to raise guns.

Can anyone confirm this?

If a suspect has a gun, pointed at a wall, do you consider it raised? If so, do you consider it a danger?

The whole reason you are not supposed to "raise" a weapon, is the implicit danger it would cause. If raising the weapon did not cause any danger, was there a valid reason to shoot the suspect? The validity of an officer taking a shot, is granted when there is a danger to himself, or another. The cop would need to believe that the gun not being pointed to the ground at a perfect perpendicular angle was a danger to himself or anyone. From the video we saw, that seems to be unreasonable.

The cop came around the corner to the suspects left hand side. The gun was not pointed to anyone, cop or otherwise. So where was the perceived danger? If a gun is such an inherent danger, then we need to do away with open carry laws.

 

[positivedoppler]

You claim suspects are allowed to raise guns.

Can anyone confirm this?

You claim that the police are allow to kill innocent civilians minding their own business shopping at walmart.

Can anyone confirm this?

 

[Matt1970]

Police procedure varies between municipalities. Although the police training manual in Beavercreek Ohio is especially messed up according to the latest Salon article.

What killed John Crawford: How terrible police training is destroying America
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/26/terr...john_crawford/

But another reason the cops weren’t charged is the fact that they did exactly what they were trained to do, from authorities starting with Ohio’s Republican Attorney General Mike DeWine. The Guardian’s Jon Swaine got ahold of a Power Point used to train Beavercreek police officers, just two weeks before they killed Crawford, in what to do when faced with an “active shooter threat.”

It essentially tells them to shoot first – I’m sorry, I mean “engage” first — and ask questions later, as they did in Crawford’s case.

The training manual, “Single Officer Response to Active Shooter Threats: What to do when YOU are first on the scene,” emblazoned with DeWine’s name, boasts of the way police departments have changed their protocols when facing cases like Crawford’s.

From 1966 through 1999, the Power Point explains, “patrol officers respond by locating the shooter, containing the suspect, evacuating the area” and “notifying the SWAT team.” That sounds awfully soft on crime.

From there to 2008, the response was a little sharper, but it still emphasized “containment.”

Then in 2008, the approach shifted. Suddenly “officers are empowered to engage the active threat upon arrival,” without waiting for backup. It cites FBI studies showing that active shooter event normally last 3-4 minutes, but “average time per kill/injury is 15 seconds.” Clearly, officers have to act fast.

In case that message was lost on anyone, the presentation closed with two slides. One asked what the trainees would police to do in case of an active threat in a building “with the one I love the most:” Wait for backup, “or enter the building and engage the suspect as soon as possible.” Then came a photo of a teacher leading tiny children to safety at Sandy Hook in December, 2012.

Is it any wonder Beavercreek officer Sean Williams charged into Walmart, wearing protective gear, with his gun aimed at Crawford, who was talking on his cell phone and holding the toy gun at his side? A witness later said he heard the police “yell and shoot simultaneously.”

Yell and shoot simultaneously? Holy fuck. We'll they certain passed that test with flying bullets.

They also managed to kill two people with two bullets, which is a very efficient use of police resources.

The Beavercreek police are starting to sound more like a bunch of paranoid Barney Fife's with hair-triggers. Militarized police have begun to represent a larger threat than the actual criminals themselves. Stay home and lock your doors.

I am not sure the writer of that article understands what an 'Active Shooter' is and that the procedure for such does not apply here.

 

[Jaskalas]

If a suspect has a gun, pointed at a wall, do you consider it raised? If so, do you consider it a danger?

For all they knew he was raising it directly at a person they couldn't see. Notice he was a few feet from the corner. Also, why are you ignorant of the idea that a person, while moving, could turn to face the officers?

If his intent and weapon were real, as they were required to believe, then they'd be dead in LESS than a second. They MUST shoot or they are guilty of putting lives at risk.

Anyone mishandling a weapon while guns are trained on them, is going to be shot. They ARE a perceived danger.

 

[bradley]

I am not sure the writer of that article understands what an 'Active Shooter' is and that the procedure for such does not apply here.

An active shooter is also someone attempting to kill people, not just engaged in killing. According to the 911 caller, Crawford is waving and pointing an AR-15 at adults and children and anyone who dares look at him.

The whole point of the article is to demonstrate how much police protocol has changed for the worse. SWAT has a much higher recruitment standard and way better training than local police. And I dare say deadly shootings haven't increased as much as the public's perception, which often defines reality.

Again it's never beneficial to "yell and shoot simultaneously” for the community at large, which police are meant to serve and protect, not overreact and endanger. The only time the protocol of shooting on sight should be employed is for the extermination of rodents and other such vermin.

 

[ivwshane]

For all they knew he was raising it directly at a person they couldn't see. Notice he was a few feet from the corner. Also, why are you ignorant of the idea that a person, while moving, could turn to face the officers?

If his intent and weapon were real, as they were required to believe, then they'd be dead in LESS than a second. They MUST shoot or they are guilty of putting lives at risk.

Anyone mishandling a weapon while guns are trained on them, is going to be shot. They ARE a perceived danger.

Fantastic! Then you agree that at least one person in each of the pics of people holding guns should be shot?

I don't think you realize just how dumb you are being right now.

 

[Jaskalas]

Fantastic! Then you agree that at least one person in each of the pics of people holding guns should be shot?

I don't think you realize just how dumb you are being right now.

Feel free to swing a "gun" around while officers have you in their sights. I'd advise against it, but you seem to think it isn't standard policy to do exactly what happened here.

 

[realibrad]

Feel free to swing a "gun" around while officers have you in their sights. I'd advise against it, but you seem to think it isn't standard policy to do exactly what happened here.

So a person with a gun is an inherent danger as long as someone else feels he is as such? Since when do civilians give a story to law enforcement that forces cops to believe it is 100% true? If I call 911 right now, and say you are about to blow yourself up, unless you are naturalized, must the cops assume I am telling the truth? Or perhaps, should the cops find out if I might have been mistaken? Cops are not here to make the world 100% safe, and certainly not themselves 100% safe. A cops JOB is a public service. At no point did this guy break a law. In fact, in his state, it is legal to carry weapons in public. Who is to say that the person who called the cops did not have a grudge?

If you believe a person with a gun is so dangerous, then we need to ban guns, and anything else that could be used as a weapon to kill someone so quickly, that you cannot take time to find out the intentions. Understand, I can use my car to mow down dozens of people faster than a gun could, but I dont think cars should be banned, just used reasonably.

I dont get how you believe that the officer is obligated to assume the person might be pointing a gun at someone he cannot see. Who is to say that the person they came upon was a good guy with a gun, who was about to take out a bad guy with a gun? Who is to say that the guy the came upon was even a danger to anyone?

 

[runzwithsizorz]

My 2 cents on this, the lack of people fleeing the store in panic, should have given the cops pause to consider an actual threat existed.

 

[The Merg]

Just as a point to note... While Ohio is an Open Carry state, the manner that the subject was handling the firearm would most likely not qualify as legal. Most Open Carry laws state that the weapon needs to be holstered or slung up.

As an example, Virginia (very conservative when it comes to gun laws) has the following code on the books reference brandishing a firearm:

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

B. Any police officer in the performance of his duty, in making an arrest under the provisions of this section, shall not be civilly liable in damages for injuries or death resulting to the person being arrested if he had reason to believe that the person being arrested was pointing, holding, or brandishing such firearm or air or gas operated weapon, or object that was similar in appearance, with intent to induce fear in the mind of another.

C. For purposes of this section, the word "firearm" means any weapon that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel single or multiple projectiles by the action of an explosion of a combustible material. The word "ammunition," as used herein, shall mean a cartridge, pellet, ball, missile or projectile adapted for use in a firearm.

- Merg

 

[realibrad]

Just as a point to note... While Ohio is an Open Carry state, the manner that the subject was handling the firearm would most likely not qualify as legal. Most Open Carry laws state that the weapon needs to be holstered or slung up.

As an example, Virginia (very conservative when it comes to gun laws) has the following code on the books reference brandishing a firearm:



- Merg

Section B is where the problem is going to be. The cop's only argument can be that he thought the suspect might be raising the gun to someone around the corner that the cop did not have sight of. He has to have had reasonable belief that someone was in danger, and I don't see how that could be, if he could not see around the corner.

 

[ivwshane]

Just as a point to note... While Ohio is an Open Carry state, the manner that the subject was handling the firearm would most likely not qualify as legal. Most Open Carry laws state that the weapon needs to be holstered or slung up.

As an example, Virginia (very conservative when it comes to gun laws) has the following code on the books reference brandishing a firearm:



- Merg

Did you see the part about inducing fear? Are you saying the cops were more scared than all the patrons in the store? Pretty sad if you are and it, again, explains why these cops were so poorly trained.

 

[The Merg]

Section B is where the problem is going to be. The cop's only argument can be that he thought the suspect might be raising the gun to someone around the corner that the cop did not have sight of. He has to have had reasonable belief that someone was in danger, and I don't see how that could be, if he could not see around the corner.

It can be said that by subject raising the weapon, he can be considered to be brandishing it even if it is not directly pointed at the officer.

There are cases where a subject has been found to have brandished a firearm just by lifting up his shirt to display a concealed firearm while having an argument with someone. Even though it never left the person's waistband, the victim articulated that they believed they were in danger.

With that said, I can see why the police fired, however, I have a huge issue with their commands. They should be loud and clear, such as "Police! Don't move!" or "Police! Drop the gun!"

- Merg

 

[ivwshane]

It can be said that by subject raising the weapon, he can be considered to be brandishing it even if it is not directly pointed at the officer.

There are cases where a subject has been found to have brandished a firearm just by lifting up his shirt to display a concealed firearm while having an argument with someone. Even though it never left the person's waistband, the victim articulated that they believed they were in danger.

With that said, I can see why the police fired, however, I have a huge issue with their commands. They should be loud and clear, such as "Police! Don't move!" or "Police! Drop the gun!"

- Merg

You can see why they fired? Why? Because he raised the gun with one hand on the butt of the gun and a phone in the other? Ooh! Scary!

 

[Linux23]

i hope they prosecute that jag off that lied to the 911 dispatcher. what a sad racist sack of shit he is.

 

[The Merg]

You can see why they fired? Why? Because he raised the gun with one hand on the butt of the gun and a phone in the other? Ooh! Scary!

When I watch the video, it is not clear if he's holding the stock of the rifle or the pistol grip at the time of the shooting. At other points, he definitely appears to be holding the pistol grip. It takes just a minute amount of time to raise, turn, and fire a rifle when holding it by the pistol grip. And the phone doesn't mean a thing. There are plenty of criminals that use phones to communicate while committing crimes (not implying that the subject in this case was committing a crime).

- Merg

 

[Darwin333]

Feel free to swing a "gun" around while officers have you in their sights. I'd advise against it, but you seem to think it isn't standard policy to do exactly what happened here.

That statement isn't relevant to the conversation since the guy didn't know the police were there or had weapons trained on him.

The guy had no clue, a few seconds observing him, especially since there was no commotion, he hadn't shot anyone, no one was freaking, and he was calm talking on his cell, would have had a very different outcome.

There was nothing about that situation that would lead any rationale person to believe there was an "active shooter" situation. Simply approaching from the other side of the aisle would have put the cops in his field of view and I bet money if he had saw guns pointed at him he would have dropped his toy.

 

[realibrad]

The context of the situation was given by the caller. The situation was continued by the cop as he assumed the call was given by someone telling the truth. The cop went into that store expecting the worst. So the guy who was swinging the gun back and forth seemed to fit what he was looking for. When you go in with a biased view, you are far more likely to fit your observations into that view.

 

[shortylickens]

Is OP ever gonna change his title to accurately reflect the facts?

I know if it were a conservative OP the mods would have already changed the title for him.