-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Cops Kill Man In Wal-Mart Carrying An Air Rifle That He Might Have Planned To Buy
- Thread starter waskel
- Start date
- Status
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Ok, that figures. Let me try again: anybody who isn't a professional shill?
Last edited:
Chuck!
Regular Member
Cops didn't shoot Crawford for pointing a gun at them, they shot him for "not complying"
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/07/c...-air-rifle-that-he-might-have-planned-to-buy/
Makarov
Regular Member
Lets see...a antigunner sees an open carrier at Walmart, lies to police in a 911 call and the police finishes off the open carrier. Its all legal. Remember you have a 1\2 second to comply or die. Be careful
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
It's very clear in the video he was not given any chance to comply, OR that he was any threat. I don't comply with cops, if people were shot for not complying we would lose half our population.
1245A Defender
Regular Member
Well,,,
now, that we have All gotten to see the vid,,
I question Even his Non Compliance!
it seems, as soon the guy see the cops,,, he drops the gun and runs away...
then he comes back,,, and is Shot,,, repeatedly,,, Until he COMPLIED!!!!
now, that we have All gotten to see the vid,,
I question Even his Non Compliance!
it seems, as soon the guy see the cops,,, he drops the gun and runs away...
then he comes back,,, and is Shot,,, repeatedly,,, Until he COMPLIED!!!!
OC for ME
Regular Member
New information surfaces and as such the charges lodged against the ex-perp will be dropped.
In other news; the cops will be retrained so as to provide just a wee bit more time, like 2-3 seconds, before using reasonable force for non-compliance.
In other news; the cops will be retrained so as to provide just a wee bit more time, like 2-3 seconds, before using reasonable force for non-compliance.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Are you sure it is not a wee wee bit more?
And not to be confused with Weeeeeeeeee--We -We--Weeeeeeeeeee.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ned-walmart-police-shot-dead?CMP=share_btn_tw
"...accusing her of lying, threatening her with jail, and suggesting that she was high on drugs.
Tasha Thomas was reduced to swearing on the lives of her relatives that John Crawford III had not been carrying a firearm when they entered the Walmart in Beavercreek, near Dayton, to buy crackers, marshmallows and chocolate bars on the evening of 5 August.
“You lie to me and you might be on your way to jail,” detective Rodney Curd told Thomas, as she wept and repeatedly offered to take a lie-detector test. After more than an hour and a half of questioning and statement-taking, Curd finally told Thomas that Crawford, 22, had died.
“As a result of his actions, he is gone,” said the detective, as she slumped in her chair and cried."
"...accusing her of lying, threatening her with jail, and suggesting that she was high on drugs.
Tasha Thomas was reduced to swearing on the lives of her relatives that John Crawford III had not been carrying a firearm when they entered the Walmart in Beavercreek, near Dayton, to buy crackers, marshmallows and chocolate bars on the evening of 5 August.
“You lie to me and you might be on your way to jail,” detective Rodney Curd told Thomas, as she wept and repeatedly offered to take a lie-detector test. After more than an hour and a half of questioning and statement-taking, Curd finally told Thomas that Crawford, 22, had died.
“As a result of his actions, he is gone,” said the detective, as she slumped in her chair and cried."
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
That is quite infuriating. A real early morning nut punch. WTF is her lawyer? Why has no one ever cared enough for this poor girl to tell her never talk to the cops.
JediSkipdogg
Regular Member
This may surprise some, but from my experience, I would say less than 10% ask for an attorney. You'd also be surprised how many consent to car searches and even moreso how many consent and as they do tell the officer exactly where to look for the weed or other evidence needed for a charge where if they had just shut up and not consented, they never would have been arrested. Society as a whole is clueless to the constitution.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
indeed. Poor people hoping for mercy in return for cooperation and honesty. I would think through out most people's childhood they were given such mercy by their parents in exchange for honesty and remorse after a wrong doing. I've always thought that was good practice but I guess such conditioning can really bite them in the ass later on.
I wonder if that means 90% of the people you've detained are stupid or just scared, or even worse, coerced or intimidated.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I believe ya !
Which is why I think that we need to go to an Israeli type of system where anything you say cannot be used against you in a court of law.
Pipe dream, sure ... but as a jurist I would not take anything said by a defendant as something to rely upon to convict (not that I would convict anyone).
JediSkipdogg
Regular Member
Ever watch The First 48? That's reality, unlike COPS. Quite a few on there talk to police without a lawyer. I think it's mostly just stupid and scared. Sure, some are coerced with the "you work with us, we'll work with you" mindset. Funny thing is, generally that's in the hands of the prosecutor and not the police officer. The prosecutor may ask for an opinion from the officer, but they have the ultimate authority to change the charge to something lesser or offer a plea deal combining charges. That's on more serious charges. A good example here that I've seen is a couple was hitting small stores, over 40 in total. The male lawyered up, the female talked. Neither needed to say anything as there was enough evidence against the two including video of a few of the B&Es. The male went to jail for the weekend, the female was cited to court and released from the PD. (not my department on lead in that case)
As for small charges like weed or drug paraphernalia, those are 100% the stupid ones. They consent to the search thinking the officer can do it anyways or sometime that the officer may not tow their vehicle for consenting.
It seems very easy for cops to get around the reasonable search and seizure rights. Impound the vehicle, perform a legal search. No consent necessary and really no probable cause necessary, just gotta figure out a way to legally impound the vehicle.
Operative word there is "legally." Manufactured excuses and improper procedure (no warrant) don't make the cut.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-seizure-criminal-law-30183.html
JediSkipdogg
Regular Member
Well, based on the number of people in Ohio with suspended driver's licenses and large amount with unpaid tickets, therefore having warrants out for their arrest, it's pretty easy to have a reason to tow their vehicle thereby giving them a reason to do an inventory search. I couldn't find any exact numbers, but both of those two categories are pretty large. My department tows rarely in both cases, but I could imagine some departments tow 100% of the time in those cases.
If one drives on a suspended license or does not pay tickets, then they have no one to blame but themselves for undesired attention.
Guess I'm a little short on sympathy tonight for stupidity.
- Status