Cops Kill Man In Wal-Mart Carrying An Air Rifle That He Might Have Planned To Buy

The Truth said:

What if the Marine who called the cops had been carrying and the exact same situation had happened except it was THE MARINE that shot Crawford, or any other civilian? Do you think he would be hailed a "hero?" Or a trigger happy vet with PTSD for shooting a guy with a bb gun first? If it were a civilian and not a former Marine and he had pulled the trigger, I wonder what the opinion would be then?

A step further, do you think a Marine would have opened fire so quickly, or do you think Marines are trained to have a little more level heads?

I know, straw-man-like, whatevs.

Click to expand...

From what I have read, not confirmed the marine went running through the store yelling "gun", and inciting a panic. Doesn't sound like any marine I know, but does sound exactly like Shannon Watts suggestion to incite panic anytime a gun is spotted in public. If so this guy deserves to be charged with murder.

A kid in school can get arrested for writing about killing dinosours with a gun, yet she outright incites violence and the libtards do not say a word.

The Truth said:

What if the Marine who called the cops had been carrying and the exact same situation had happened except it was THE MARINE that shot Crawford, or any other civilian? Do you think he would be hailed a "hero?" Or a trigger happy vet with PTSD for shooting a guy with a bb gun first? If it were a civilian and not a former Marine and he had pulled the trigger, I wonder what the opinion would be then?

A step further, do you think a Marine would have opened fire so quickly, or do you think Marines are trained to have a little more level heads?

I know, straw-man-like, whatevs.

Click to expand...

Two rhetorical questions? That could be some kind of record.

color of law said:

So, quit writing like you have information that none of the rest of us have. It's deceiving.

Of course now it's:
The victim's family law firm or the state's hired law firm????? And who are they.

Click to expand...

The law firm hired by the PD to release the records: Coolidge Wall Co., L.P.A.

And not sure where I'm writing like I have information nobody else have. I have all publicly available information.

papa bear said:

Actually Yes. That is the rule of engagement for the US military. The civilians should do the same

Click to expand...

But doesn't the US Military still respond to the scene?

JediSkipdogg said:

The law firm hired by the PD to release the records: Coolidge Wall Co., L.P.A.

And not sure where I'm writing like I have information nobody else have. I have all publicly available information.

Click to expand...

JediSkipdogg said:

They haven't released in store video yet. The latest I've been told is they are waiting till at least the Grand Jury date.

I currently have the cruiser cam videos which I'm trying to piece together now and then ultimately get uploaded. They are large videos, so not sure how I'm going to upload them yet. 4 DVDs with 2 GB of ripped video (I ripped them to MP4 files and lowered the resolution, but they are still 2 GB)

Click to expand...

We all have that info. It's public record. The way you write clearly comes across as you have documents that none of us have.

I'm not the only one challenging your statements. The only difference between OCDO and OFCC is your not a moderator here with the power to ban someone you don't like or have it done.

Here at OCDO we can tolerate heated discussions and will bluntly point out bull. Here at OCDO we are big boys with thick skins. We all know the end game.

Most of us are pro cop and will stand with honest cops. But, dirty cops, well I'll let the forum speak to that.

Enough said.

JediSkipdogg said:

The law firm hired by the PD to release the records: Coolidge Wall Co., L.P.A.

Click to expand...

Law firms cannot represent anybody. Attorneys represent clients. I greatly doubt the police department hired a law firm or an attorney. That is an executive decision by elected officials. The City of Beavercreek has a law director. So again, I greatly doubt the police department hired a law firm or an attorney.

OC for ME said:

Two rhetorical questions? That could be some kind of record.

Click to expand...

Which two? :lol:

color of law said:

We all have that info. It's public record. The way you write clearly comes across as you have documents that none of us have.

I'm not the only one challenging your statements. The only difference between OCDO and OFCC is your not a moderator here with the power to ban someone you don't like or have it done.

Here at OCDO we can tolerate heated discussions and will bluntly point out bull. Here at OCDO we are big boys with thick skins. We all know the end game.

Most of us are pro cop and will stand with honest cops. But, dirty cops, well I'll let the forum speak to that.

Enough said.

Click to expand...

FYI... I didn't ban you and had nothing to do with your banning. Came as a surprise when your name was added to the ban list. But obviously you won't believe that.

And obviously a lot don't have the info as I haven't seen the 911 calls posted here and most are replying as if it was just a MWAG call. This was more than that, a MWAG pointing it at people, at least that is what intel first responders had. What actions they took once they met the subject with the gun should not reflect on the the caller, the dispatcher, or the backup units and should really only require an analysis of what happened once the officer walked through the front doors of Walmart.

color of law said:

Law firms cannot represent anybody. Attorneys represent clients. I greatly doubt the police department hired a law firm or an attorney. That is an executive decision by elected officials. The City of Beavercreek has a law director. So again, I greatly doubt the police department hired a law firm or an attorney.

Click to expand...

Semantics. The law firm hired by the city. The city I work for doesn't have a law director/city solicitor. We have an entire law firm that we have a contract with, nothing in our ordinances specifies a person's name, simply the entire firm will provide employees at XXX rates per hour. And if we have questions on public records we contact someone in the firm that is knowledgable on public records prior to releasing.

It was just a CALL until officers confirmed that he was pointing at people, what kind of idiot suggests shooting someone on second hand information only?

WalkingWolf said:

It was just a CALL until officers confirmed that he was pointing at people, what kind of idiot suggests shooting someone on second hand information only?

Click to expand...

I've never suggested that. But should they have NOT responded? Quite a few on here say no response was even required and it should not have been dispatched. If the officer entered the store with the attitude to shoot, that's on the officer and will come out in the in store video by the actions of the officer and the individual the seconds before the shooting.

What I'm trying to figure out is why people think the police should not have even responded. Because only one call was received does not mean a criminal act did not occur or was not about to occur. If the basis to dispatch is based on multiple calls, basically to validate each other, then that can be applied in many other situations as well. And in many instances, only one call is received prior to the crime being committed.

JediSkipdogg said:

I've never suggested that. But should they have NOT responded? Quite a few on here say no response was even required and it should not have been dispatched. If the officer entered the store with the attitude to shoot, that's on the officer and will come out in the in store video by the actions of the officer and the individual the seconds before the shooting.

What I'm trying to figure out is why people think the police should not have even responded. Because only one call was received does not mean a criminal act did not occur or was not about to occur. If the basis to dispatch is based on multiple calls, basically to validate each other, then that can be applied in many other situations as well. And in many instances, only one call is received prior to the crime being committed.

Click to expand...

I beg to difer, IMO this is exactly what you are suggesting. There is absolutely no indication that the officers saw the victim pointing at anyone. And at that moment he was on a cell phone, and so far the reports only justification is a claim he turned around. The call, the dispatch is incidental to the event, that is it. The only justificatio for killing someone is the reasonable belief that people are in danger of death or serious injury. And NOTHING so far has indicated that, the only justification you keep bringing up is the dispatch report as it is justification. HOG WASH!

As my mother would say "Would you drop your pants and poop in the middle of the street because your dispatcher said so?"

AND nobody has said the police should not have responded! What they have said repeatedly is that a phone call alone or a dispatch is NOT justification to kill someone. YOU have claimed otherwise as well as making a bogus claim that the police and dispatcher could be sued for not doing something, which everybody knows is a lie. Still waiting for those cites...

JediSkipdogg said:

I've never suggested that. But should they have NOT responded? Quite a few on here say no response was even required and it should not have been dispatched. If the officer entered the store with the attitude to shoot, that's on the officer and will come out in the in store video by the actions of the officer and the individual the seconds before the shooting.

What I'm trying to figure out is why people think the police should not have even responded. Because only one call was received does not mean a criminal act did not occur or was not about to occur. If the basis to dispatch is based on multiple calls, basically to validate each other, then that can be applied in many other situations as well. And in many instances, only one call is received prior to the crime being committed.

Click to expand...

Here are the facts we know: First, Ohio is an open carry state. The simple act of carrying a firearm openly is not a crime and can not be cause to even require an individual to produce identification or detain them. Basically, simply observing someone in Ohio carrying a firearm is not probable cause to even question them. Second, we have seen plenty of cases recently in the media in which open carry advocates have openly carried their firearms in public -- including AR15s -- and in stores like Walmart. Including, interestingly enough, in some communities right near this incident. In many of those cases, people called 911 to respond. But, in none of those cases, did police arrive with guns drawn and in none of those cases was any one killed. The officers simply observed attempted to ask questions but ultimately concluded that -- other than intimidating other people by virtue of open carrying -- no laws were violated.

In this case, it was not even a real gun nor was it even owned by the victim. Interestingly enough the 911 caller referred to it as an AR 15. That statement in and of itself was false, which the trained officer should have realized on seeing the alleged "AR15" was false -- calling into question other statements the caller made in his observations.

So, we have a young man, walking around with a BB gun that was for sale at Walmart, while talking on the phone. We have a customer who called 911 like other customers have done in cases where real guns have been carried in other situations. Except, unlike those other situations, the police seemed not to investigate and observe for themselves whether there was in fact criminal activity nor did they even seem to take to time to even notice that what was described as an AR15 was in fact not -- anyone knowledgable of firearms would see that on site (which tells me they did not hesitate to shoot) -- and for what? Even if it were a loaded AR15, the officer would not even have the right to stop and question the young man because it would be completely lawful in Ohio unless the officer himself witnessed (not a 3rd hand account) the individual pointing or threatening someone with the firearm. I think anyone who cares anything about their 2nd Amendment rights ought to be horrified by this case.

brassrat said:

Here are the facts we know: First, Ohio is an open carry state. The simple act of carrying a firearm openly is not a crime and can not be cause to even require an individual to produce identification or detain them. Basically, simply observing someone in Ohio carrying a firearm is not probably cause to even question them. Second, we have seen plenty of cases recently in the media in which open carry advocates have openly carried their firearms in public -- including AR15s -- and in stores like Walmart. Including, interestingly enough, in some communities right near this incident. In many of those cases, people called 911 to respond. But, in none of those cases, did police arrive with guns drawn and in none of those cases was any one killed. The officers simply observed attempted to ask questions but ultimately concluded that -- other than intimidating other people by virtue of open carrying -- no laws were violated.
Simply OCing is not carrying "in hand."

In this case, it was not even a real gun nor was it even owned by the victim. Interestingly enough the 911 caller referred to it as an AR 15. That statement in and of itself was false, which the trained officer should have realized on seeing the alleged "AR15" was false -- calling into question other statements the caller made in his observations.
If it looks like a real gun and a threat is perceived..... Ownership is not Germaine/relevant.

So, we have a young man, walking around with a BB gun that was for sale at Walmart, while talking on the phone. We have a customer who called 911 like other customers have done in cases where real guns have been carried in other situations. Except, unlike those other situations, the police seemed not to investigate and observe for themselves whether there was in fact criminal activity nor did they even seem to take to time to even notice that what was described as an AR15 was in fact not -- anyone knowledgable of firearms would see that on site (which tells me they did not hesitate to shoot) -- any for what? Even if it were a loaded AR15, the officer would not even have the right to stop and question the young man because it would be completely lawful in Ohio unless the officer himself witnessed (not a 3rd hand account) the individual pointing or threatening someone with the firearm. I think anyone who cares anything about their 2nd Amendment rights ought to be horrified by this case.
No way to tell that is was a BB gun taken out of the box .

Click to expand...

Some of my responses in blue above.

Truth of the matter, none of us know for a certainty what happened - we were not there.

I can tell you this, point a facsimile gun at most people I know and things will go south from there.

Disclaimer: I am not blaming either participant. I am waiting.

My only concern is was he a theat at the time of the shooting. From all indications that is very blurry. It does not matter whether he was OCing or carrying or if it was a bazooka, bb gun, or howitzer.

Was he a threat? So far just from what the cops reported IMO NO. Turning with a gun but not pointing it is not a threat. It is cause for alarm and rediness, but it is not a excuse to just let go with gunfire. I will give them the benifit of the doubt, but not slap them on the back until a video is released. If it is as the atttorney says they should go to prison, if not then the case will fade away.

One of the biggest indications of malfeasence is dragging feet on evidence to exonerate the police, who have control over this evidence. We see this in both this case and the Brown case. Sorta like Richard Nixon is in charge from the grave.

Sorry Grape but to just say having a gun no matter how carried might validate taking a life, I strongly disagree. It is very serious and even if justified it still deserves a investigation and open, swift, honesty with the public.

WalkingWolf said:

My only concern is was he a theat at the time of the shooting. From all indications that is very blurry. It does not matter whether he was OCing or carrying or if it was a bazooka, bb gun, or howitzer.

Was he a threat? So far just from what the cops reported IMO NO. Turning with a gun but not pointing it is not a threat. It is cause for alarm and rediness, but it is not a excuse to just let go with gunfire. I will give them the benifit of the doubt, but not slap them on the back until a video is released. If it is as the atttorney says they should go to prison, if not then the case will fade away.

One of the biggest indications of malfeasence is dragging feet on evidence to exonerate the police, who have control over this evidence. We see this in both this case and the Brown case. Sorta like Richard Nixon is in charge from the grave.

Sorry Grape but to just say having a gun no matter how carried might validate taking a life, I strongly disagree. It is very serious and even if justified it still deserves a investigation and open, swift, honesty with the public.

Click to expand...

Never said it was - said I was waiting.

Grapeshot said:

Some of my responses in blue above.

Truth of the matter, none of us know for a certainty what happened - we were not there.

I can tell you this, point a facsimile gun at most people I know and things will go south from there.

Disclaimer: I am not blaming either participant. I am waiting.

Click to expand...

But you can tell it is not an AR15. That is my point. If you are saying it is sufficient to take deadly action based on 3rd party 911 call. If one critical point of information is false you have to question to the other information provided. The other fact we know that no one has disputed is he was talking on the cellphone. According to the Ohio police's own policy - the police officer himself must personally observe illegal handling of an open carried firearm before even questioning (let alone pointing a firearm at) an individual. Even if it was not apparent it was a BB gun it certainly isnt an AR15 (debunking the 3rd hand info from the caller) and it seems incredible to believe that while on the phone an individual could have done anything in the direct observation of the officer to warrant shooting him. It seems suspicious to me they have not released the video tape. I suspect what happened is the officer took the callers info at face value, came in with his gun drawn, may have yelled something quickly and then fired. I think the video would be helpful for folks to see instead of this piecemeal dribbling of information.

Grapeshot said:

Some of my responses in blue above.

Truth of the matter, none of us know for a certainty what happened - we were not there.

I can tell you this, point a facsimile gun at most people I know and things will go south from there.

Disclaimer: I am not blaming either participant. I am waiting.

Click to expand...

Repectfully the middle sentence could have been left out, we have no proof he was poining anything at people. All there is~is a claim on a phone that is unsubstantiated. That same person also claimed the man was trying to load the weapon which can only be considered a outright lie or the marine has no idea of what loading a gun is. I think the fact he was a marine makes it clear he was lying, I am sure of that about the loading claim. If he lied about that how much other of his call was hyperbole, intent to get a reaction that would make Shannon Watts proud. One thing is clear this could have been cleared up already with just one act, releasing the video. If they keep dragging their feet on what could clearly be what you and I are waiting for, then something smells like poo poo. Where you have poo poo you have dirty government.

I bought a BP rifle at KMart 20 years ago. I took that rifle out of the box, did a function test of it, before paying for it, then put it back in the box. I then carried it out of the store. I was lucky the marine was not around because my doing a function test could have resulted in the same type call from a anti gun nut case.

I have two opinions in this case just waiting on that video. He was commiting suiced by cop, and was indeed attempting to elicite a fatal response. Or he did a simular action that I did in KMart that day, in which case would make both the police and the caller negligent.

But I am only left with opininos because the police will not release the damn video.

Grapeshot said:

Some of my responses in blue above.

Truth of the matter, none of us know for a certainty what happened - we were not there.

I can tell you this, point a facsimile gun at most people I know and things will go south from there.

Disclaimer: I am not blaming either participant. I am waiting.

Click to expand...

Per my previous post, here is the link to Ohio's Policy guidance on responding to someone carrying a firearm: http://ohioccw.org/files/OFCC-14-117-OPEN-CARRY-OF-FIREARMS-IN-PUBLIC.pdf

Note the following:

"Expect citizens to call the police when they see someone openly carrying a firearm. The fact that someone has called 911 or flagged down an officer to report someone with a firearm
in public is not by itself enough to support an investigative stop or detention. In such situations, an officer must observe the subject and evaluate the totality of circumstances to determi
ne whether reasonable suspicion exists to justify detaining the individual for further investigation. The detained person must only be detained long enough to confirm or dispel the reasonable suspicion. Open carry of a firearm by itself does not support a charge of Disorderly Conduct or Inducing Panic. There must be additional facts to support these offenses.

If someone is lawfully carrying a firearm, and doing nothing else illegal, the fact that it causes alarm to others does not support this charge. When an officer encounters a person openly carrying a firearm, and no other criminal activity is observed or suspected, the officer may ask the person questions in a casual manner. Ensure the encounter is obviously consensual by informing the person they are free to leave and officers are not positioned in a manner that blocks the person’s path. Citizens may ignore requests for information during a consensual encounter
(i.e. they do not have to answer any questions)."

"Expect citizens to call the police when they see someone openly carrying a firearm. The fact that someone has called 911 or flagged down an officer to report someone with a firearm in public is not by itself enough to support an investigative stop or detention.

Click to expand...

Good to go so far, right?

In such situations, an officer must observe the subject and evaluate the totality of circumstances to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists to justify detaining the individual for further investigation.

Click to expand...

Oops, not so fast, giving the cop some wiggle room to "RAS up."

The detained person must only be detained long enough to confirm or dispel the reasonable suspicion. Open carry of a firearm by itselfdoes not support a charge of Disorderly Conduct or Inducing Panic. There must be additional facts to support these offenses.

Click to expand...

How the hell did we get to this point?

If someone is lawfully carrying a firearm, and doing nothing else illegal, the fact that it causes alarm to others does not support this charge.

Click to expand...

From the Department of Redundancy Department.

When an officer encounters a person openly carrying a firearm, and no other criminal activity is observed or suspected, the officer may ask the person questions in a casual manner.

Click to expand...

Make contact anyway, even though we told you just a few lines before this one you should not make contact unless you suspect (observe) criminal activity. Ya get the picture don'tcha

Ensure the encounter is obviously consensual by informing the person they are free to leave and officers are not positioned in a manner that blocks the person’s path. Citizens may ignore requests for information during a consensual encounter (i.e. they do not have to answer any questions)."[/QUOTE]Uh, ya gotta go up and bother the law abiding citizen who you have observed not breaking the law, but hey, no biggie just don't get us sued. Oh, yeah, like a lowly citizen is gunna ignore you with your badge and gun all up in their business. Especially if ya call in a couple of fellow state minions to give the appearance that they have no choices but to follow your "request(s)."

Simply put, if no criminal activity is observed do not make contact, continued observation is permitted.