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

[The Truth]

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)."

Good post. This is crucial info.

 

[marshaul]

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.

Exactly. A single MWAG call might prompt a response, but if so that response should be wholly investigatory in nature.

Until video proves me wrong, I'm going to assume our victim wasn't unhinged enough to threaten cops with a BB gun (that being a virtual death sentence).

If that's the case, the fact that he's now dead is de facto proof that the cops didn't show up with investigation on the brain. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, and guess that they rolled in heavy, caught the man off guard (probably intentionally, surprise being an effective "tactic" to use against an "enemy" in "combat"), thereby forcing him to react perfectly in virtually zero time, and filled him with lead when he failed to react in the right way fast enough.

But why should we expect different? It's a lot of fun to show up "tactically" and in force. And with the public cheering them on as defenders against possible active shooters everywhere (despite the cops' abysmal track record on this count), every MWAG call is an excuse to roll heavy.

I won't condone such attitudes.

And Jedi, if the only two options are rolling heavy and not rolling at all, I'll pick the latter. It's not the cops' job to defend us, and frankly I don't want it to be. Cops are a statistically far more likely to kill you than to save you from an active shooter. Heck, cops are more likely to kill you than an active shooter is! (This is true by nearly an order of magnitude, BTW.)

 

[WalkingWolf]

Exactly. A single MWAG might prompt a response, but if so that response should be wholly investigatory in nature.

Until video proves me wrong, I'm going to assume our victim wasn't unhinged enough to threaten cops with a BB gun (that being a virtual death sentence).

If that's the case, the fact that he's now dead is de facto proof that the cops didn't show up with investigation on the brain. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, and guess that they rolled in heavy, caught the man off guard (probably intentionally, surprise being an effective "tactic" to use against an "enemy" in "combat"), thereby forcing him to react perfectly in virtually zero time, and filled him with lead when he failed to react in the right way fast enough.

But why should we expect different? It's a lot of fun to show up "tactically" and in force. And with the public cheering them on as defenders against possible active shooters everywhere (despite the cops' abysmal track record on this count), every MWAG call is an excuse to roll heavy.

I won't condone such attitudes.

+1

 

[Chuck!]

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.

Can you cite this for me?
I would very much like a written or audio of her saying this

 

[Chuck!]

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.

BINGO!!
I want to know more about this Marine.
He thought he saw an AR15 being loaded, when it was a BB gun and the guy was talking on his cell phone. (probably getting bitched at about child support, or money in some form)
He says several times on the call that Crawford is pointing the gun at people, children are mentioned twice I think
The cops come running, like they should on a call like that, but here's the part don't like

The cops shot Crawford because he "failed to comply" with orders
The Beavercreek PD said that was the reason, not that he threatened anybody, but because he didn't "comply"
I have a problem with that


Nobody, not even the cops, have said he presented a threat to ANYONE, except this so-called, "Marine", who saw an AR 15 being loaded by a man on his cell phone and then "waved around" and pointing it at people who weren't alarmed at all, not even the "two children"
I think I want to learn more about the caller
And I want to see the video with those "two children",,,,

 

[WalkingWolf]

Can you cite this for me?
I would very much like a written or audio of her saying this

Digging for it, I believe it was posted last year. It brought a lot of bad publicity so it seems she has not brought it up again.

But her friends have.

Mike Malloy

I guess what I'll do if I'm ever in that situation and I see one of these yahoos walking in with a weapon, high caliber rifle like that, I'll just put on a berserk act. I will just start screaming Gun! Gun! Gun! Watch out, everybody hit the deck! Everybody. And then call 911 and I will say, shots fired, which will bring every g--damned cop within 15 miles. And then the half-wits with the long guns are going to panic and they're going to run out of the store and if that rifle isn't shouldered properly, the cop is going to take a look at that and put a bullet right in their forehead.

 

[color of law]

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.

You missed the whole point. OFCC will not allow dissent among the so called rank and file. Especially when it's against a moderator. And more importantly when the moderator insisted they were correct then finally had to admit they were wrong, this deserves banning the messenger who's waving danger flags. The worse part is it took coarse language to get through to the moderator that they did not know what they were talking about. On the other hand, maybe that coarse language didn't get through to the moderator after all.

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.

Since when does the public documents have to be posted on OCDO?
I have experience with 911 operators. My assessment is they hear what they want to hear. Buzz words leads them to conclusions that unfortunately don't fit the facts. The information fed to the officers colors the officers perception as to what the officer is expecting to encounter. In other words, bad information in, bad results happen.

Generally, dispatchers are taught that guns are evil, period. Example, Cincinnati police 911 web page:
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/contact-us/911/

Appropriate uses of 911 are instances of immediate danger or there is a crime in progress, such as: person with a weapon (gun/knife)

We all know that a person with a gun equals immediate danger.

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.

The city you work for doesn't have a law director, are you sure?

R.C. 733.01 Executive power in cities.
The executive power of cities shall be vested in a mayor, president of council, auditor, treasurer, director of law, director of public service, director of public safety, and such other officers and departments as are provided by Title VII [7] of the Revised Code.

R.C. 733.49 City director of law - term of office.
The city director of law shall be elected for a term of four years, commencing on the first day of January next after his election. He shall be an elector of the city.

So, what law says otherwise?

 

[solus]

I thought eye 95 ran the buckeye chapter of everything that mattered not this jedeye?

ipse

 

[solus]

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

snip...

sad part is, this document you are promoting brassrat, is not "OHIO's policy guidance" as you profess but rather allegedly from one of OHIO's city's from the newly appointed police chief. i also find it curious the document is not from any police thread but rather the Ohio CC website with their watermark throughout the document?

additionally, doesn't anybody else find it interesting this document proffered with everyone rallying around isn't even initialed by anybody? not even the chief or any of his subordinate(s) in the policy division?

ipse

 

[color of law]

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

snip...

sad part is, this document you are promoting brassrat, is not "OHIO's policy guidance" as you profess but rather allegedly from one of OHIO's city's from the newly appointed police chief. i also find it curious the document is not from any police thread but rather the Ohio CC website with their watermark throughout the document?

additionally, doesn't anybody else find it interesting this document proffered with everyone rallying around isn't even initialed by anybody? not even the chief or any of his subordinate(s) in the policy division?

ipse

OFCC can't help themselves from putting their fingerprints allover everything. And they did not get the official document.

Here is a copy of the official document.
View attachment Cleveland Divisional Notice 14-117 (1).pdf

 

[JmE]

That's some curious information you posted, JediSkipdogg. Are you sure that they are correct in the way that they are operating or could it be that they are in violation but continue to operate the way that they always have? This would be the type of situation that concerned citizens would be more likely than not to investigate.

 

[JediSkipdogg]

That's some curious information you posted, JediSkipdogg. Are you sure that they are correct in the way that they are operating or could it be that they are in violation but continue to operate the way that they always have? This would be the type of situation that concerned citizens would be more likely than not to investigate.

What information? On not having a law director but a firm? Nothing color posted says we must have those. It simply says the executive powers should be vested in all those people, but not that any are required.

We don't have a public safety director, unless you consider it the Chief of Police, but his title is not public safety director. About 15 years ago we had a public safety director that was over the Chief of Police but that position was eliminated. We don't have a president of council. We don't have an auditor, we utilize the county.

We hire a law firm by a vote of council and then appoint people from the law firm to do different aspects for the city....ie council, contracts, public record requests (if questions come up), lawsuits, mayor's court prosecuting attorney, etc.

All of those are outlined in our city charter voted on by the people.


Oh, and I'm sure CoL thinks Mayor's Courts overseen by a Mayor are still illegal.


Edited: Just read our charter and there is a solicitor listed but doesn't specify it has to be a single person. And it's not voted on by the people but voted on by council, same as our mayor. The ordinance that selected the current person states "Any partner or associate of XXX XXX is authorized to act as Solicitor as directed by XXX XXX." That's where I got the idea that we don't have a full solicitor per say as I mentioned above we have different people at this firm that handle many different items, not one.

 

[JmE]

What information?

I was referring to the information in the post that you have apparently now edited to emptiness. No need to get your back up as i was just commenting.

The only question that I posed for any and all was, "Are you sure that they are correct in the way that they are operating or could it be that they are in violation but continue to operate the way that they always have?"

 

[color of law]

What information? On not having a law director but a firm? Nothing color posted says we must have those. It simply says the executive powers should be vested in all those people, but not that any are required.

We don't have a public safety director, unless you consider it the Chief of Police, but his title is not public safety director. About 15 years ago we had a public safety director that was over the Chief of Police but that position was eliminated. We don't have a president of council. We don't have an auditor, we utilize the county.

We hire a law firm by a vote of council and then appoint people from the law firm to do different aspects for the city....ie council, contracts, public record requests (if questions come up), lawsuits, mayor's court prosecuting attorney, etc.

All of those are outlined in our city charter voted on by the people.


Oh, and I'm sure CoL thinks Mayor's Courts overseen by a Mayor are still illegal.


Edited: Just read our charter and there is a solicitor listed but doesn't specify it has to be a single person. And it's not voted on by the people but voted on by council, same as our mayor. The ordinance that selected the current person states "Any partner or associate of XXX XXX is authorized to act as Solicitor as directed by XXX XXX." That's where I got the idea that we don't have a full solicitor per say as I mentioned above we have different people at this firm that handle many different items, not one.

JediSkipdogg, this is my point, you make statements that are based on what you think you know, not on the true facts. You present your theories as fact. This is why people are skeptical of your statements.

As to why the city you work for does not have a director of law is because you looked at the city charter. That's your answer? My question was if you don't know then why. You did not answer that question. Why? It's because you don't know why?

The ability to adopt a city charter was granted by an amendment to Ohio's Constitution in 1912, Section 7 of Article XVIII. The Ohio Constitution states: "any municipality may frame and adopt or amend a charter for its government and may...exercise thereunder all powers of local self-government."

Of course the City of Cincinnati was a charter city well before the State of Ohio even existed. And they are not shy about standing on that fact. The city of Milford became a charter city in 1970. It's the only charter city in Clermont County. City of Loveland straddles two counties, Clermont and Hamilton.

As to mayor's courts, some mayor's courts are operating illegally. Many mayor's courts appoint magistrates to avoid conflicts between executive and judicial branches of government. Ohio legislators are considering abolishing mayor's courts. I like mayor's courts. They are as corrupt as county municipal courts, but easier to win in.

JediSkipdogg, you still don't get it and I think you never will.

 

[The Truth]

"But now Ritchie is telling a very different story. In an interview with The Guardian newspaper Sunday, Ritchie said that “at no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody.”

"So why would Ritchie lie about Crawford’s actions? That remains unclear, but it appears that he told another lie as well. In his round of media interviews, Ritchie told reporters that he was “an ex-Marine.”

"The truth is that Ritchie was expelled from the Marine Corps after just seven weeks because his enlistment was determined to be “fraudulent.” Ritchie now says that the debacle was simply the result of bad paperwork."


Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1464363/walmart-shooting-john-crawford-911/#eHKt3ez4BoirB7FD.99"


What a colossal piece of sh!t. I hope he's charged. Still think it's a good shoot?

 

[WalkingWolf]

"But now Ritchie is telling a very different story. In an interview with The Guardian newspaper Sunday, Ritchie said that “at no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody.”

"So why would Ritchie lie about Crawford’s actions? That remains unclear, but it appears that he told another lie as well. In his round of media interviews, Ritchie told reporters that he was “an ex-Marine.”

"The truth is that Ritchie was expelled from the Marine Corps after just seven weeks because his enlistment was determined to be “fraudulent.” Ritchie now says that the debacle was simply the result of bad paperwork."


Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1464363/walmart-shooting-john-crawford-911/#eHKt3ez4BoirB7FD.99"


What a colossal piece of sh!t. I hope he's charged. Still think it's a good shoot?

Just like the Michael Brown case it is unraveling and disgusting. My guess is Ritchie is a gun control advocate and followed the advice of the radio show talk host. He should be charged with murder and the officers charged with manslaughter. They thought they were justified on a bogus 911 call. Both the dispatcher and the officers are idiots that should not be in such positions.

This is a point I have made repeatedly VERIFY, do not take second hand reports as gospel.

 

[marshaul]

Absolutely disgusting. This lying **** ought to be charged with second degree murder.

Anybody still care to defend the cops' heavy-handed response to a single MWAG call?

 

[Primus]

Absolutely disgusting. This lying **** ought to be charged with second degree murder.

Anybody still care to defend the cops' heavy-handed response to a single MWAG call?

Sure. Cops didn't know the guy was lying. So couple that with IF the gun was pointed at them.....

I also agree the guy should be charged with something.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Running Wolf]

From an article on the topic:

Ritchie continued to defend his 911 call, even though Crawford was simply carrying a BB gun picked up off a store shelf, saying that “Even still, it’s a gun in Walmart, in a public place, inducing panic.”

Sounds like he was the one inducing panic. It's funny which people cops choose to assume are lying and which ones they assume are telling the truth . . .

 

[WalkingWolf]

Sure. Cops didn't know the guy was lying. So couple that with IF the gun was pointed at them.....

I also agree the guy should be charged with something.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The idiots killed a man on the word of another idiot, anybody who defends this has to be an idiot also.