if interested you watch the video and decide if they were justified or not

Dayton Police shoot man waving air rifle sold in Wal-Mart - in Wal-Mart

I watched the video on my phone but it is too small and not enough detail for me to form an opinion. I can't tell from the tiny video if he walked around the store with the air rifle? It appears he was standing in sporting goods by the air rifles when he was shot? I would also want to hear EXACTLY what the person who called 911 said and what the responding officers were told by dispatch before I would attempt any Monday morning quarterbacking on this.

Holy crap! Not only was there no effort made to get him to drop the toy, he didn't even know anyone was concerned about him till he was already fatally shot.

Man, when I was a kid, toy stores had whole wall sections full of realistic toy guns of every description (Remember Mattel's M-16?), many of them loose, and it was the norm for kids of all ages to grab one and fool around with it in the isles of the store.

The cops who did this need to be arrested for murdering this man. Equally to blame, however, is the police culture that's been encouraged by the establishment, i.e., that citizens are entirely expendable, and no consideration for the rights of the citizen need concern them as they seek, to the maximum possible degree, to minimize danger to themselves while carrying out their assigned duties.

It's a mindset appropriate to an active field of battle in a war zone, but completely out of place for a civilian police force operating within the borders of their own nation.

I think basically the police took the caller at his word - and I guess he was factual - a man was waving around a gun

even though I'm sure it was an orange tipped gun

What bothers me is that the police enter the store - and the situation wasn't customers hiding behind dog food or running for the exits, people were just shopping and going about their business while this guy was playing war or whatever with a toy rifle, talking on his cell phone

That said, if you see a policeman point a gun at you, whether you did anything wrong or not, then is not the time to test the police restraint.

It appears they came upon the guy at an aisle end cap and the policeman determined he had on a couple of seconds to make a decision of whether this man was a threat to his life or not.

Why it came down to that , to me, is the real issue of all this.

another thing here - how far apart is this and someone carrying a real gun around the store under state open carry laws?

a 911 caller brings out the swat team to the local Kroger because a dude is buying ice cream and he gets shot in the head.

Well, in defense of the police, he was gonna eventually die from all that sugar anyway.

That's a disturbing video.

One minute the guy's messing with a product off the shelf at Walmart, and the next he's full of holes and leaking his life out at the hands of a bunch of tacticool police. WTF has this nation come to?

Grand Jury has already given a pass to the officer.

But Holder and the DOJ are opening an investigation.

Jurors are, for the most part, intimidated when it comes to taking actions against police officers, apart from the most blatant sort of open criminality. The police operate much like a criminal gang in terms of how they stick together against anyone who they perceive as being against any of their kind. If you're a "lowly" civilian, considering the awesome power wielded by cops these days, the last thing you want is for them to think of you as "that guy who put one of our guys in prison."

Looks to me like he was shooting products inside the store...a few people come around the corner & see what he's doing & take off...I suppose they alerted employees

I don't think crossman guns are orange tipped, unless they're air soft.

That guy had already shot a kid in the windpipe and a lady in the face. He was running around screaming about "putting your eye out with that thing". He was a crazy man trying to shoot people's eyes out.

So why not tell him to drop it from a distance, and only pulling triggers on him if he starts to raise it up?

Because the cop didn't want his eye shot out.

With the gun pointing to the floor?? I don't even think the guy realized cops had been called till after he was leaking.

Talking out of your ass again, Hawkeye.

And there's the whole story, I thought there might be more.

TFF!

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Typing out his ass.


You don't want to see his keyboard.

Where's the evidence of this? I've read several reports that don't make mention one of any of that.

Did the guy have a rap sheet? If so, perhaps society is better off without him, but removing people from the gene pool isn't the job of the police.

now seat belt violations are a shootable offense

http://www.wistv.com/story/26621563/dash-cam-video-released-in-trooper-involved-shooting

there better be more to the story to justify killing the man

It's OK. He probably had a rap sheet. Anyway, the important thing is that the officer made it home safe at the end of his shift.

The 911 call puts things in an entirely different picture.

Caller told dispatch that a man was walking around shooting a black rifle at people.

This is what was the info police had at the time.

So, when you arrive where people are calling about an active shooter do you wait for him to point at you? Do you wait for him to shoot somebody else? How long do you wait for him to comply?

I don't have any evidence of that. I just figured that since everyone else was presenting their theories and opinions as fact that I would too.

Sorry if my outlandish theories temporarily derailed your outlandish theories.

When did he get an opportunity to comply? Seems like he was full of holes before he knew anyone was concerned about him, let alone that the police were making demands of him.

not to mention do you kill a man on the word of a 911 caller

About how I figured it.

Made ya look.

You didn't answer my questions. Nice dodge.

You clearly see the chance to comply. He took a step to the right, started crouch and raise the gun. Chance gone.

Bluedreaux just stated that he made that up from whole cloth.

Read this in a report elsewhere on the 'net. If this is true he should be charged with manslaughter and the dead man's family should sue the chit outta him.

In addition, the man who initially made the call to 9-1-1 to report that Crawford was carrying a weapon around the store and pointing it at people, Ronald Ritchie, has already admitted to lying about the facts regarding his 9-1-1 call.



During the initial call, Ritchie claimed that a black man was �walking around with a gun in the store.� He told the dispatcher, �He�s, like, pointing it at people,� and later told reporters, �He was pointing at people. Children walking by,� according to The Guardian.

But a month later in an interview with The Guardian he had changed his story stating, �At no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody.�

Additionally, in the initial call, Ritichie told the dispatcher that Crawford appeared to be �trying to load� the gun, which the 9-1-1 dispatcher relayed to officers telling them that they thought the gunman had �just put some bullets inside.�


Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/br...an-toy-gun-wal-mart/#Fo669BZ7DUFXM3Kq.99

Comply with what? Do witnesses confirm that cops issued a command and provided more than an instant to comply?

What??

It's your job to face the dude. You've been told that he's already shot people. What frame of mind do you approach him with?

Me? He flinches, he dies. I'm not giving him the chance to kill me. Remember, I don't know that it's an air rifle and I'm under the impression that he's trigger happy.

Seriously, what would you have done differently given that knowledge?

Besides schitting their pants. Nothing different and they know it

But TrH hasn't been able to jump on his soap box in a while so now he is making up for lost time

the toy gun has an orange tip on it and no one in the store is acting like a man has a weapon pointing it at people.

How often does a cop go into a retail store with someone brandishing a weapon and people are still shopping and going about their business?

Witnesses? TFF...

How about this...

If a civilan with a ccw did the same thing to the gunman, you'd be singing their praises and calling it a good shoot.

BS.

That "orage tip" doesn't mean a damn thing anymore. We have taken a half dozen guns this year off of turds that had the tips painted orange.

If a civilian with a CCW did this, he'd be in prison..

it doesn't mean a damn thing to the police?

yes, I'm sure you're right as evidenced by this shooting

First, orange tip? Really? Have you ever been in a shooting scenario? When a gun is being weilded do you want to take the time to call a time out so that you can get a better look at the tip? Do you know that it's not a real rifle that the shooter painted orange on it? Do you think that's really all that obvious given all the other colors in that asile?

If you want to play games with your life, that's on you.

I would have done the same thing the cops did.

Good shoot

It doesn't mean that we automatically think "toy gun" anymore


As I said, crooks are smart enough to paint the tips of real guns "orange ". We have taken a half dozen or so aood Bgs this year painted that way

So no, it doesnt mean that If i see an orange tip i'm going to relax and say "awe shuchs folks it's just a toy"

And from what I can see of the video he didnt give the cops a whole lot of time to make commands either, seems like he rounded the corner and started raising the gun, and got what he asked for

Probably, yes. But the campfire would be screaming injustice were it so and call the dude a good samaritan.

Clear as day. He heard the warning and moved instantly in an aggressive manner.

Good shoot

if this dude had already shot two people for real with that pellet gun, I would have done the same thing the cop did, I don't want to get shot by anything. You be one more stupid or deranged SOB to walk around a walmart and shoot people with a pellet rifle. On the other hand if Mr. Cruise is being factious and the man he had done nothing but play with the gun and he was killed by the cops then that is totally wrong without so much as a "drop the gun and put your hands in the air"....

watch the video and tell me he isn't swinging the gun back and forth at his side before the police arrive.

if this was a 14 year old kid the police killed because of a 911 call, I wonder how many people would be so quick to say he got what asked for

Not enough info to form any opinion one way or the other.

And a check of Crossman airguns web page shows that the air gun in question the m4-177 does not have an orange muzzle tip

you're too smart to fall for that trick anyways

Moral to this story - Don't buy guns at Walmart.

No orange tip on the gun. Orange muzzles are for toy guns. Air rifles are not toys.

true

the thread I read said it was an air-soft gun

Without watching the video, I'm gonna guess the guy was white. Am I right?

You're off your rocker.

You're intellectually dishonest.

A guy going around shooting people and a ccw stops him. You're a lying fool if you maintain that the campfire would not call the ccw a hero.

Hell,the bad guy doesn't even need to shoot anybody for that to happen. Remember this?

[video:youtube]wWoLGC-n4i4[/video]


Hero.

Weird, usually people here don't care when black people get shot.

lol

The air rifle shooter knew how his day was going to end well before he walked into Wal-Mart.

You really want to put your credibility behind this whacky position?

Yeah, pretty much how I saw it too. He got the results he was looking for.

True, I should have left out the word "intellectually"...

Guy found a play gun out of the box in Walmart and was walking around the store playing with it like an idiot. Cops got called, saw him holding what looked like a gun and shot him before he had a chance to do anything.

Lots of things could have gone better in hindsight.

The problem I have is that as long as a cop can shoot anyone that he feels to be a threat with no repercussions, all we will ever have in these events is hindsight. Repercussions would cause more foresight.

Nailed it.

From a quick look I tend to agree. But the kid acted strangely in walking around the store whirling the thing around. It showed a lack of real world awareness to me. Adult right, or close?

But anyone who is familiar with firearms, and certainly police, and what looked like a SWAT team, should be able to ID and differentiate a firearm from an air rifle in a couple of seconds. Shoot first; determine facts later?

^^ An important point. ^^

Another is that this intimidation and oppression is not by accident, and its broader 'usefulness' has not been overlooked.

Yea, those guys playing video games in Littleton should of been shot as well, because the 911 caller said they were actively shooting people...

Best not to shoot anyone you feel is a threat.

Take a bullet first, then return fire.

the problem is when the cops see everyone as a threat

another thing - 1 call to 911

in a wal-mart with a man brandishing an assault rifle.

and we're watching the loss prevention tape from security

meaning that most likely not only would a bunch of people be calling 911 if something was happening but wal-mart's anti-theft folks would be calling as well

Personally, it looked like cold blooded murder to me.

I'd charge the officer with second degree murder, and his supervisor as an accessory for failure to properly train and supervise.

LOL, an accessory to murder.

The officer was cleared by his own department as he should have been, then lo and behold the feds come along and get involved. That is the only reason state/city/county cops have a bad word to say about the feds. They support them in their common war against civilians, but it just isn't fair when they come in and 2nd guess them when officers kill in this case or commit rape.

In the Financial Services, if a broker gets busted, he supervisor can expect to loose his license as well.

If you are a police supervisor/Manger, and your officer(s) kill someone due to inadequate or improper training, they should be held criminally responsible for the death. Large payouts of tax payer money doesn't seem to catch their attention, but take an incident such as this, put the officer, SGT, and Lieutenant behind bars, the later two for their failure to train and supervise, and police would start viewing these incidents in a different light, and training to a more balanced approach to risk management.

Perhaps you are right that accessory to murder is not the correct charge. A reckless action that causes the death of person is perhaps better captured by a charge of Man Slaughter.

Did you miss where the cade was presented to a Grand Jury and they No- billed it?

I did not. And in this instance I disagree with the Grand Jury.

As one article mentioned this killing was "within the officers training", they had just been through "active shooter" training two weeks prior. Just a couple of problems here. This wasn't an active shooter, it appears the officers NEVER considered for a moment the initial reports were wrong (hint, the saying within the INTEL community is "initial reports are always wrong"), and they didn't even take the time to read the shoppers, or realize they were not hearing gunshot before opening fire.

So, if a person negligently releases a wild animal upon the public that kills someone, what's the proper charge?

Parents of adults who make bad decisions should also be held criminally liable? They had a pretty big part in shaping the decision making ability of that adult.

Not at all. They could have used a bull horn or the store intercom to tell him to put the gun down and no one would have been hurt. They didn't think in this manner because there are no repercussions. In order to be charged with a crime a cop would have to basically just execute an unarmed man, and even then it would have to be on video. Repercussions for a bad shoot will cause more forethought.

The actions of these cops were as if there was an active shooter who had already shot people. In such a case, their actions would be completely justified. That is not what happened here, but the cops were jacked up so much from active shooter training that they saw what wasn't there.

Yes, parents can be held responsible for their child's actions:

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/parents-civil-liability-a-childs-acts.htm

Ohio (isn't that where this happened) even tried to make them criminally responsible.

And parents can be held criminally responsible if they don't do enough to prevent their underage kids from drinking in some states:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2012/05/parents-can-be-arrested-for-drunk-teen-parties.html

1How many "active shooter training courses have you been through?

2. Just because they didn't hear shots does not mean there is no shooter

I can't make any opinion on what theu thought, especially with a measely 1:41 worth of Video.

But it appears that the Grand Jury that was able to hear everuthing the DA had, did not feel it warranted a true bill. End of story

You my friend....nailed it.

That was the first thought that occurred to me, as well. But, like you say, in the vast majority of cases there are no consequences for wrongful death by cop, so what motivation is there for cops to think of non-lethal approaches? None. To them, due to the modern police culture, civilian life is cheap.

Of course not. That's the stick you fingers in your ears, lalalalalalalala, of most LEO's when confronted with a set of facts not favorable to their profession. When is the last time you admitted on this forum an officer was wrong?

However, despite the fact that I am throwing hammers at Blue tonight, he's made that exact admission several times in the past and was willing to call out, what in his opinion, was bad police work. I respect that.

Are you saying these boys acted properly, that this is the way you were trained, and you would have done the same thing???

And if you are, how is this causing you to rethink your training???

That's simply false
He was armed with a deadly weapon

If you don't believe that, let me shoot you with my pellet rifle

that right there was downright scary and looked all wrong to me. that could have been any big kid in the store carrying around an airsoft gun. i'm all for LE, but that looked dead wrong to me.

If someone that appears armed, and makes a furtive movement that i take to mean they intend to harm me, then they are getting shot.

That bull horn from a parking lot is pure hollywood,

And I have called bad police work what it was. Hell i've testified against other cops, that includes cops in my own dept.

Answer my question how many active shooter teaing courses have you been through?

I've spent many hours with a pellet rifle. Did you know that with a pellet, that model of pellet rifle will not penetrate neither a skunks skull, nor a deer skull from the front? Now wth BB's at point blank range you can do it with the Daisey 880, but not the Crossman 760.

Are you claiming this pellet rifle will penetrate body armor?

And keep in mind the 760 is a multi-pump system. It takes 10 pumps to achieve full power, making it a single shot system. It's not exactly an AKM.

Then look at the tape again and show me the "fugitive movement".

He never faced the officers before he was shot.

I don't think cops ever go into a situation like this just not giving a crap if they kill someone or not. I think they simply act in the manner they have been trained to act. We live in hard times. I would like to see changes, but there are no easy answers.

it could start by not putting yourself in a situation where you are acting on reflex and not thinking

Rambo mode isn't going over very well with the general public right now.

Its furtive. And according to the evidence presented at the Gj he was shot before dropping the "air gun" after failing to follow orders to drop said gun.

18 witnesses testified to that Grand Jury. With that many testimonies, if the GJ had had enough to begin to think vharges were warrneted they would have handed up a bill.

Yep? The feds are looking into it at the request of the suspects family. Based solely on...... Whether racism played a factor. Thats a good hint that their attorney knows it was a good shoot

For the sake of argument, we're not talking about parents giving kids beer.

We're talking about adults going to prison for the bad decisions that other adults make. Which is crazy.

Show me, on the tape, where he created a threat to the officer.
Please prove the time marker where you see it.

I completely agree. I can just see both sides with all the crazy things going on in the world today.

Still, I would rather not live in a militarized police state. I would much rather trust keeping myself safe than having to wonder if I might get shot at anytime by a nervous cop.

There was another story just today on an Alabama Forum where a guy was shot at a traffic stop because he took his wallet out like he was ordered to do. Thankfully he wasn't killed.

I figured you'd try to rationalize things, all the while ignoring the fact that they had no way of knowing what type of gun he was holding.

Many guns won't penetrate body armor, but can still kill a person with a shot to the head.

You can make any silly claims you like, but it won't change the fact the guy was stupid with a GUN in public and paid the price

I thought we were talking about an innocent man being shot

Innocent man?

Where?

Actually, before the first officer comes into frame on the right hand monitor, the suspect dives behind an end cap of the aisle, dropping the gun. apparently just before that is when, according to testimony, bybthe prosecutor, the time the shots were fired were determined by the foot movement of the one officer who's feet are in view of the left hand monitor. At that pount he still had the gun in his hand. you can see him move back around that end cap towards the first officer, in what looks like an attempt to regain control of the gun

We are discussing adults improperly training and failing to supervise other adults, giving those improperly trained adults deadly force and qualified immunity, and setting them free on the public in a manner that results in the unreasonable death(s) of others.

As I mentioned above, there are already industries that subscribe to this philosophy, and they are just dealing with the public's money, not their lives.

Just for clarification, I haven't watched the video. And as far as I know I've only commented on what other people have said, not what actually happened. I really have a hard time caring what happened to stupid people when they ran into stupid cops in some far away place.

8:26:56

Officer identified himself and said "Get down" at this moment the guy took a step to the right while entering a crouch and bringing the gun up to the ready position.

I took your earliest comment as humor, and enjoyed the rabbit hole it created.

Instead of bitching and whining here, you should find out the names of the 9 GJ members and stomp your feet and cry why, why, why, to them.

That's not what I saw. He was laying the pellet rifle on the floor when the officer shot him. Taking two to the guts is what caused him to hunch over...just like how a deer hunched up when you gut shoot them....

That's pretty cleaver...you shoot someone, and claim their reaction to being shot is the "furtive movement" that justified the shooting.

Hey, I'm a giver.

He stepped right and brought the gun up to his left hand. He went from one hand on the gun to two. That's not putting it on the ground.

Oh man, are you deluded! Soon as he saw the cops he couldn't put that gun down fast enough. He was shot in the act of putting it down. How you could perceive what you claim to from the video is just downright unbelievable.

Sick!

He was clearly not in the act of putting it down. He went from a single hand hold with it dangling at his side to two hands on it.

I cannot believe you're serious.

He didn't "take two to the guts". He was shot once in the elbow and once in the abdomen

Ok, now I see what you are seeing.

Cop comes around the corner, BG makes eye contact with the officer, brings the left hand up to the rifle to grip it while looking at the officers, and then decides to drop it after taking two rounds.

I retract.....Good Shoot.

Again, haven't seen it.

But this is a great example of why you should never say, "Put the gun down." It's almost impossible to put a gun down without pointing it at someone, or appearing to.

No surprise there. You can't let yourself see what's clear to everyone else. It goes against your agenda.

I prefer "drop the taco". That confuses the schit out of them

What do you prefer to "put the gun down"?

I think that this was his intended outcome, sadly.

Suicide by cop.

Who's everyone else? What a joke!

Kudos on a fine piece of well thought out text,

yup, the "Answers" become more elusive, and will be remaining so.

GTC

Don't move.

Simple to say, simple to understand, and every person on Earth is capable of doing it. It works in every possible situation. And best of all the witnesses will know exactly what I said and what the bad guy should've done (or not done).

Thats out of character, i figured you would yell "get down with yo bad self"

That's terrible.

looked to me that he was startled when the cop yelled for him to put it down, he jumped a little and was popped. he was acting like a moron, but I think the cops jumped the gun. one person who should be brought up on charges was the 911 caller who said the guy pointed a rifle at him and children and he saw him loading it with bullets, then later said he actually didn't. he was also the ONLY 911 caller, another point to consider when going into the situation.

I'm curious as to how they treated him once they secured the "weapon" and realized it was a bb gun. did they realize the mistake in the whole situation and try to save him?

"Don't Move" worked for me, although, we had to add the standard phrase "MF'er" to most commands.

Rarely was anything complied with unless it had a "MF'er" on the end.

Strange world.

That anyone, especially a cop, can defend what was done to this guy, is more than a little disconcerting vis-a-vis the future of our nation.

That anyone can be so consumed with a cause that he firmly believes encompasses the very essence of the public interest, yet he decides that his only action will be to complain to a mix of interested, disinterested, and indifferent anonymous people on an internet forum is more than a little disconcerting vis-a-vis the future of our nation.

it will be interesting to see how this conversation unfolds when someone calls 911 on an open carry person exercising his second amendment rights.

If you're justified in shooting someone with a bb gun at Wal-Mart who didn't respond quickly enough to your commands, what will happen to a guy with his his AK in Kroger?

I guess under all circumstances if you don't respond correctly or quickly, they are justified in shooting you.

Princess, watch the video, S-L-O-W-L-Y, and you will see what HAJ and I are talking about A/S finally saw

Have you looked at one of these bb guns closely, unless they are in your hand they are damned tough to differentiate between real ones.

had he simply dropped the damned thing, instead bringing it up from a one hand to a two handed grip, he would probably be around today. I'm betting that there was more than one command to "put down the gun" or don't move".

Do people just as a matter of course exercising their 2nd amendment rights carry their weapon at the ready, as opposed to holstered or on a sling?

Everyone wants to hold the police to common sense decisions, but for some reason carrying a weapon throughout the store, which for all purposes in this case, looks real and is normally in a box, requires now not common sense on behalf of the citizen, but mind reading omnipotence on behalf of the cop.

Geez...

Stop, you're gonna upset the "intelectuals" by interjecting logic into the argument


Hawkeye would kike to put himself in this scenario as the cop, and how he would react, but he gets as far as picturing the uniform and gets sidetracked with a marathon masturbation session

why didn't common sense tell the cop to look around and recognize that no one was in a panic situation in Wal-Mart

to have enough common sense to ask why there was only one 911 call in a place filled with people who should have been collectively [bleep] their pants at that point

logic appears to be selective in this discussion

Happens all the time where I work. Nobody's been shot.

my younger brother spent 4 hours on the operating table after being shot by a pellet gun.

Interesting question. I shop at Kroger. And if I ever see a civilian coming around the corner into my aisle with an AK in his hands - not slung, but in his hands - my first thought is going to be that he intends to kill me.

There won't be a lot of time to look around to see if other people are running for cover or otherwise showing signs of concern.

yes, and you're a civilian not responding to a 911 call meaning that unlike you in the situation above, the policemen knew ahead of time of the possible situation giving them time to evaluate it.

see - we're supposed to understand that the cop had only a split second to apply a common sense approach to the moment he faced shooter but completely disregard that he had ample time to assess the severity of the threat prior to that moment.

that is what troubles me in those defending the shooting.

So if I shoot and kill the guy, I'm good. A responding officer shooting and killing the same guy, it's not.

I don't know if your good, but I understand why you'd react the way you did.

And the rest of your statement, absolutely

Did the dispatch tell the cop only one 911 call was placed?

Did the officers encounter other people before they saw the suspect.

Do all citizens panic? For that matter, do people behave like they are always aware of their surroundings - take for example the subway crowd that the one nutcase pointed guns at while they were too busy on their mobile devices to notice.

In a vacuum, I would have been predisposed by wondering, given the 911 call of man with gun in walmart, why he hadn't shot any one yet, given response times and all and figured he had a screw loose and was waiting for cops - rather than deduce that an unboxed weapon was laying around and he just picked it up and walked casually around the store not getting other items to purchase.

but that's just selective logic again.

I don't know the answers to those questions

but the default answer isn't "shoot now, evaluate later"

if you're a policeman and you're looking for justification to why you should shoot someone, such as "yea, a guy could paint an orange tip on any gun" or "people don't panic because they look at their cell phone" then there is a serious problem

If you can rationalize why you should ignore the situation around you because there is a threat that is life endangering to you and that is the only possible scenario, then how can you ever be trusted to protect the public?

You make an assumption that the cops knew there was only one 911 call. IME that tidbit isn't usually on the forefront of dispatchers minds in these situations

And look at the video, there isn't a whole lot of people around him and you only see a few people in the other screen

You admit you don't know. and then claim you do

It's easy to sit a 1000 miles away behind a keyboard and say what someone SHOULD have done in a highly stressful situation.

You pretend YOU are being "logical" but it's all a delusion when you ignore the facts you don't like

Their justification was they ordered him to drop the gun, and instead of doing that he went from dangling it with one hand to bring it into a two handed grip or a firing grip.

If I tell you to drop the gun, and instead of dropping it, you raise it up towards me and get a two handed grip on it, i'm going to take it that you mean to kill me.

I'm not ignoring facts

Unfortunately I need to leave to go on a camping trip with the scouts so I have to bow out for the rest of the weekend

it was an f-ing bb gun with a orange tip

Isn't this exactly why they make the orange tip?

The cops were in the wrong, period.

you don't have your facts straight Dave.....

Pellet guns don't have orange tips

this:

I see it as murder. Totally uncalled for. Flame away. I don't care.

I watched the video.

They were wrong.

So, they were wrong because the gun had an orange tip.

Upon finding out the gun had no orange tip, they were wrong for another reason.

Well met.

Well. Apparently a GJ disagrees with you. Instead of bitching and whining here. You should get their names and cry and stomp your feet to them

If it weren't for TRH's anti-semitism, I could make a bundle mail ordering sack cloth, ashes, and mouth guards.

You're on a roll today, but that's an outstanding piece of work sir. Well done.

The gun in question had no orange tip... http://www.pyramydair.com/s/m/Crosman_MK_177_Tactical_Pneumatic_Air_Rifle_Black/3180

It looks to me like he was at a minimum shooting products inside the store. At 750-800 fps, BB's would be ricocheting wildly. Either pellets or BB's hitting products would probably be pretty loud on top of the discharge of the gun...don't kid yourself...that gun could kill you. Whether or not the cops were in the wrong, I have no idea. I'm sure the grand jury had better information than a news report & the meager video posted...

Hawkeye will be along momentarily to explain why jurors of any description are terrified of police retaliation.

I've had to tell people that their apartment building was engulfed in flames before because they simply had no idea. And after they walked outside and saw that five doors down the whole building was on fire, flames shooting into the sky and a bakers dozen fire trucks and ambulances were right outside their door.....I had to answer the question of whether they really had to leave.

So no, I don't put much stock in the fact that the lady buying Oreos in the grocery section didn't know that there was a dude with a gun in sporting goods.

Heck, when I'm forced to shop at Wal-Mart I keep my head down and avoid eye contact too. How embarrassing would it be to have someone you know recognize you and know you shop there? I'd have to come up with some lame excuse like, "Oh no. I'm not shopping.....I'm just here to meet a midget prostitute. He should be here any minute." Anything would be better than being known as a Wal-Mart customer.

Too late.

I'd say don't be a douchebag, but it appears too late. You're already a douchebag.

I'm flattered. Truly

LOL
Why is it you want to start name-calling when you have been proven wrong?

Why not just admit it like a grown-up?

I don't know what A/S's motives were for claiming to do a 180 on this, but I doubt truth had much to do with it.

Can't bring yourself to watch the video slowly can you. Just cant imagine your fantasy land narrative of things is made up bullschiet. Keep pumpin away princess

You ignorant bastard, he was intimidated by the campfire police members.

I know for a fact that someone held his sack in a melon baller with a blow torch at the ready.

I've watched it several times. He made an effort to drop it as soon as it registered in his mind that a cop was issuing commands to him to do so. There's no rational way to interpret the video as the victim getting ready to engage the police in a shootout. The shooting began almost instantaneously with his efforts to put the gun on the ground.

Cops should have, from a distance, via megaphone or store speaker systems, announced their command for him to lower the weapon and place his hands behind his head (or whatever else would satisfy the police).

You would never change your mind, would you.

Please show us the documentation of all of your police tactics and training

Keep watchinbTV princess, this wasn't a hostage situation

Admit to what? That the cops clearly killed a man with a toy gun and didn't even try non-lethal means?

I'm not wrong.

toy gun



not toy gun

Not sure how this clears the cops for shooting a guy who appears to me to be laying his "weapon" down

well i hope folks can understand your edits to my post but allow me to retort:

1) the "toy" gun is not available in the toy aisle, its available at sporting goods isle.

2) he was not shot in the toy aisle, he was in the pet f'n food aisle.

3) WHO cares if a gun being used by a criminal - real or perceived - is available at the place of the offense.

Really?

Put yourself in the cops shoes.

They get a call for a guy with a gun at McDonalds, and they know that can't be the case because you can't get a gun off the menu?

For f*ck sake, dude.

If the attitude of the cops here at the Fire, and those of their toadies here at the Fire, is indicative of the attitudes of American cops in general, nothing short of a mass firing of cops, top to bottom in the chain of command, is going to correct the problems we're experiencing as a nation vis-a-vis the rampant abuses of the rights of citizens by cops.

Actually our local walmart did have a couple of SCARs for sale,

But i see your point, police now need to be inventory specialists for walmart. I'll pass that on.

You need to catch a bus to fairy land with stink eye

Or...it's just we're tired of listening to sniffly nosed, mealy mouthed pimple faced fuggheads like you that are too paranoid to leave their basements and have absolutely zero clue of the job telling us how we need to do the job.

Are you this vocal about the cops in your town at town meetings?

You came into the thread claiming it was a toy gun with an orange tip. You lost all credibility then.

There is no "non lethal" solution to someone pointing a deadly weapon at you in a public place.

It's clear you want to totally blame the police, while ignoring the actions which caused the entire incident

OK, that shyt was funny. Carry on.

No. Nor do I go into Little Italy and badmouth the Mob.

Fuggin classic, you're nothing but a foot stomping coward.

I'm a realist.

You're a paranoid coward

LOL
That's exactly what they did
Happy now?

Call me what you will from behind your badge. Unlike you, I've got no armed gang at my back.

Not.

actually since i'm off work for a month and have been relieved of any duty I don't have a badge,

Geezus what a freak show you are

You're in the brotherhood. That doesn't change with retirement.

you are the biggest phugging dumb arse ive ever come across except for maybe Don....

in this case I have to agree, the entire running around Walmart with a toy gun thing is "not reasonable behavior". The guy with the air rifle running around a store certainly precipitated this.

Hawkeye is not a coward. He may be many things, but he is without a doubt one of the bravest men to ever appear at the Campfire.

With all he knows about Israel and Mossad, and all that he tells on the internet where organized world jewry can see what he writes, he faces death every day and he still endures.

Mossad surely knows where he lives. Where he works. The Walmart where he shops. They know what route he drives to school every day. They know about the shower pistol. The pit bull. They killed Patton. Hawkeye must know that they'll get him, too. One day.

But still he fights on. He's a hell of a man.

Man... You better be afraid of the joos

Does this mean I'm a toady?

That hurts man.


Hurts.

Bigot.

Yep, i'm always spewing anti jewish statements and propoganda

He was looking the officer square in the eyes when he placed his second hand on the gun like object.

you are the biggest phugging dumb arse ive ever come across except for maybe Don.... [/quote]


Just curious. What bout Walt?????


Take care, Willie

You're only saying that out of fear, or wanting to fit in. Hawkeye said so

If that's the case, you shouldn't. It's just not right to speak of "the Jews" as if they are a monolith. You will find all kinds among them, both good and bad.

Not according to you. You tell us all the time how the jews are taking over the world to destroy it.

Not so. In fact, I've stated many times that I disagree with those who, like you, speak of "the Jews" monolithically, as though they all agree, and are of one accord, on all matters.

Nice hijack effort, though.

Is there a better copy of the video/audio sync out there?

Because I'm hearing the officers first yell something at about 8:26:55.10

No reaction by Crawford until 8:26:56.0, where he starts to drop down with the rifle and yell "It's not real". At no point do I see the muzzle of the rifle he's holding go past Crawfords left leg, until after the shots.

First shot right before 8:26:56.2, second shot by 8:26:56.25

1.1 seconds to comply fully and accurately with the officers commands, and yet slowly enough to not seem furtive or aggressive? This, when reaction time to seeing brake lights go off right in front of you is 1 second.

GMAFB.

So while I can see how the GJ reached a no-bill, if the DOJ ruins the shooter's life, well I'm OK with that too.

LOL, a realtor.

LOL yeah!! He just shows houses to people. Realtors don't know what it is like to belong to a manly occupational group that will take a call over vandalism to a home and show up and rape the home's owner to put her in her place while one of their co-workers keeps a watch on the front door like you in the police biz do. And if he/they did, they damn sure wouldn't get by with it like police do.

Yep, sure am. You looking for a house near Austin? I've got contacts...

But I see that you don't have anything to say about the timeline I presented, nor the fact that all you LEOs tout that "one second minimum to react" time when talking about the downfalls of tailgating. And that's just to move your right foot from accelerator to brake. With no never mind paid to whether or not it's furtive.

No I didn't debate the timeline. I didn't even watch the video. Personally I think tailgating is great. How else will slow people know you hate them?

The realtor LOL had nothing to do with this thread. I just think realtors are funny.
"Hey, let me tell people your house is for sale."
"You mean just like the Internet does?"
"It's complicated. Give me 6% of your money."

Remember travel agents? One day we'll remember realtors the same way. Just as soon as people see through the "it's complicated" smoke and mirrors.

No. They need to not shoot people who are laying down the gun like they were to to do by the exact same cops who told them to lay it down.

Really, are you simple minded? The job of the cops is not to shoot people. It is to make arrests.

I agree with the guy who posted that if the attitudes by cops here are indicative of the force as a whole the whole lot of you need fired.

We had more stringent rules of engagement on civilians in Iraq than these jackasses have against US civilians in a walmart.

This is out of control.

PFFFFTTTTTT

I guess I'm a "cop here"......what is my attitude, exactly? What impact does this shooting, or the one in SC, have on me or my PD? Do I have any impact on either event?

You and TRH should, apparently, get to it in your respective areas. I don't think my employers are interested.........

George

You attempted to make a point by saying those "not toy", ergo real guns weren't sold at walmart. I made you look like an ass( even though you haven't needed the help) by suggesting that we( police) should all be trained inventory specialists of our local walmarts.

He had plenty of time to drop the gun. He chose not to. Full stop end of story.
Thanks for playing, and enjoy never never land with TRH

I've seen more gunplay than you will in your whole life and been in enough to know that if you don't think those cops were wrong then you are the "enemies domestic" some of us have sworn to defend the Republic against.

Take-A-Knee is that you?

No dirt bag, it's Colonel Walter.

You?

Dirt bag? You sure you're not Hooks from "police Academy"?

The SC cop knew it was ok to shoot a guy for getting back out of his vehicle as ordered. The prosecutor will really work at making sure he gets off the hook and back on the job and that will be a great precedent for LE. Not sure why you do not support that since the police of this country do.

DW, good on you for your service. What do you do in the military?

If I disagree with you then I'm an enemy of the good ol USofA? Power trip much.......Colonel?

I wouldn't doubt you've seen more "gunplay" than me. But I've seen enough douchebaggery to recognize it from all the way across the Internet.

No. If you think cops should be able to shoot US citizens in a walmart under more relaxed rules of engagement than we had in Iraq, then you're a menace to the Republic.

Your right to disagree is specifically one of the ones I'm most proud to defend.

The right to disagree is probably the most important right.

Power trip? Never been accused of that by anyone who knows me. I'm probably the least power-tripy commanding officer I know.

I used to command EOD, fire rescue, emergency management and vertical and horizontal construction units. Now I'm part of a specialized engineer unit that forward deploys into "contingencies," or backstops troops moving forward.

George,

My comment was not directed toward every LEO on the fire. I'm marrying one.

My beef is with people who are trying to justify what appears to be a homocide if it had been done by anyone else.

I think it's time for the pendulum to swing back to not shooting to death everyone who might be a threat.

That's all.

What you keep forgetting is that regardless of what anyone hear thinks. A Grand Jury, who likely heard a lot more evidence ( i know they heard testimony from atleast 18 witnesses) felt that those cops did not use excessive force.


I've probably been "justified" in shooting a [bleep] load of people in my career, but I thankfully haven't had to. And I hope to end my career that way.


Part of the problem with this video is that the audio is dubbed in. It's from the 911 call not the video surveillance system. One of the articles states that by the video they could only make a "best guess" as to when the shots actually were fired, by looking at one officer's feet.

What I'm saying is the bar is too low for use of lethal force.

A grand jury not deciding to indite is just more evidence that the bar is too low.

So I should have to be shot at before I shoot? Gotcha

Here is a direct quote from the prosecutor to those "


The Supreme Court of the United States said you can't judge this sitting at home on a Sunday afternoon, drinking a beer, watching the Bengals," special prosecutor Mark Piepmeier said Wednesday, referring to the Greene County grand jury in Xenia.

"You have to put yourself in their shoes at that time with the information they had."

"Split-second decisions in confronting these type of situations are not a crime unless based on all the circumstances a jury believes that they were unreasonable in what they perceived that day and the way they reacted to it," he said.


That's what those jurors did, they put themselves in those cops shoes

LMAO
From the guy who jumped in with "it was a toy with an orange tip"

You lost all credibility then, and have said nothing since to regain any

To me, it's proof you don't care about any facts that don't fit your agenda.

The Grand Jury got to see it all, but you decided without seeing anything

You came into the thread spewing misinformation and making accusations, and you haven't changed no matter how much evidence to the contrary has been presented.

Colonel Walter,

Many and most people here are biased based on their own experience.
It appears to me, given your comment, that your view is biased based on your experience dealing with the restrictions, limitations and rules you lived under.

I wonder if you'd be so unflexing if you'd been allowed the opportunity to do your job without the ROE you had.

I've been to different sources to watch the video, and the guy did not react properly when requested to drop the gun. Face it, his whole action, to pick up a apparent real looking weapon, and hang out in the pet food aisle for an extended duration was just not right.

The cops did their job.

You can't compare them to Iraq, and contrary to the lot that posts this, these items don't happen every damn day, and certainly are the superminority of interactions with police.

RWE,

I agree.


"Snyper,"

Cute name

Well, this is just about the oddest thing anyone has had to say on the subject, so far.

Despite the fact that the members of the grand jury had access to evidence that you and I - and everyone else here - have not seen, you apparently believe that civilians are not to be trusted with governing themselves.

You're not likely capable of understanding the point he was making.

Hawkeye, the main difference between you and David Walter is that he is an intelligent, thoughtful man who sincerely believes that the members of the grand jury in this case were too lenient in their oversight of the officers. I respectfully disagree with him.

You, on the other hand, are a deranged lunatic whom I pity, but otherwise have no respect for at all.

Too bad there wasn't some audio to go with the video.

And, having never been in one from any side I wonder about a grand jury.
Don't they make their decision based just on the information given them as directed by a prosecutor?

Which ROE David? Because they certainly vary depending on the situation.

Sometimes the military can drone strike known bad guys just to keep them from maybe doing something bad in the future. In other situations the ROE are more strict though. Or are all LEO to be bound by whatever ROE you happened to have on your last deployment as an engineering unit in a contingency area?

Your comparison to military ROE was full of good intentions, but devoid of any critical thinking.

I'm glad you approve, but flattery won't change the facts, will it?

No GJs can call witnesses and prety
Much examine whatever piece of evidence they want. There is no "defense" side to a grand Jury, meaning the only attoney present is usually the prosecutor

Guess again.

Grand juries receive and evaluate the evidence presented to them by the prosecutor. They have no right to demand additional evidence.

We don't even know if the grand jury saw the video. And we'll never know, since the proceedings are secret.

A prosecutor can bring a one-sided presentation of evidence and get most anyone indicted, a la Rick Perry's matter.

A prosecutor can likewise decide not to present certain evidence, and attempt to secure a no bill.

In this case, if the prosecutor decided to only present the testimony of the officer that they approached, the victim raised the rifle, and they shot him dead, what else could the GJ do?

And Gitem, since you're so obviously wrong about this process, you've lost all credibility, and will no longer be posting on the Campfire, correct?

Oh boy, being a LEO for the past 24 years it is hard to make the call on this one. Did the officers challenge him?? Looks to me like they just shot him.

Wondering y he picked the gun up and was walking around the store with it??

One can only hope.

Yes according to testimony. They did challenge him

Bluedreaux,

I'm not sure I endorsed or insisted police use the same ROEs that we used in Iraq? Did I say that?

I am asking for a national conversation on when police should rightfully fire on someone holding a gun, which is a protected constitutional right. If someone in uniform can kill you for holding a gun, then "keep and bear arms" isn't much of a right.

In this instance, I just can't see the reason for the use of lethal force, but I wasn't there. From the admittedly "armchair quarterback" position I'm left with more questions than answers after watching the video a few times.

AFTER you have a few missions under your belt cruising around in an MRAP at night looking for IEDs, then comment about the engineers.

Feel free to post your bonifides...

"Snyper"

Cute name....

You're right. Misuse of words. But here they do have the power to subpoena witnesses, and documents. They don't call witnesses, but the prosecutor will work qith the Gj to gather evidence and hear testimony. That's how i should have phrased it.

And according to articles i read on the case, the Gj did see the video, and heard testimony from 18 witnesses.

ive got a cousin that will tell you being shot with a bb/pellet gun is not something to shrug off.....one into his gut nearly cost him his life....not his eye, not his head, into his stomach....

as others have pointed out why isnt the idiot walking around with the gun supposed to have any common sense...freedoms dont come without responsibilities....if your gonna march around a store with a bb gun that is sold in a box(ive seen the damn things on the shelf) with anything more than a serious look appears to be a normal firearm your a few cards short of a full deck OR your looking for the result you got, suicide by cop.....

Rattler,

Agreed to that, too.

You said it's "out of control" that the ROE would be more liberal for cops than what you had in Iraq. Then you said that anyone who thinks cops should have more liberal ROE than soldiers in Iraq was a "menace to the Republic" (which, by the way, was a nice deflection from your earlier statement of "enemy-foreign and domestic").

So yeah, I'd say that's a pretty plain endorsement of cops using the same, or more strict, ROE than you used in Iraq.





I've simply asked for clarification on which ROE you'd like to see implemented from the military? The ROE for drone strikes? You don't have to answer, it's rhetorical.
_______________________________________

As for my bonafides, I've already admitted you've got way more "gunplay" under your belt than I do. There's no need for you to embarrass me with my insignificant resume in front of all these folks.

LOL
Guess again yourself:


What was that you said about "credibility"?

LOL
I'm not playing your silly game just because you won't admit you formed your opinion without knowing anything about the case

Tell me again about the "toy gun with the orange tip" instead of just childish repetition about my SN

He's using that tactic to distract from his first post:


You'd think a highly trained Colonel would want to get the facts first.

If I might make so bold as to interrupt this juvenile pizzing contest between (when you get right down to it) mostly LIKE minded individuals.

ALL of the ammo is off the local Wal Mart shelves in my town , this AM, and one apparently has to present ID and ask specifically for what the robot on duty may or may not know is in stock, "In the Back".

Verification needed on the rumor that same same in Tucson.

Right, wrong, motivated by fear, poor training, a savage desire for neocon cops to do whatever,.....maybe a plot hatched out by joo bankers,....WHATEVER......

Lemme get on record that this event is going to SUBSTANTIALLY modify Wally World's corporate culture, and as well it's future activities in marketing arms of ANY sort.

All this chit slingin' going on, ....it behooves me to remind you to wash your hands before eating.

carry on.

GTC

Maybe "guess again" was too complicated a concept for you. When you're completely clueless, Wikipedia ain't necessarily your friend.

The grand jur*Y*, through the prosecutor guiding it, can issue subpoenas requesting appearance and/or other evidence. A grand jur*OR* sits and observes the presentation of that evidence by the prosecutor.

It ain't like a grand jurOR can just demand you empty your pockets, though if you were serving as one, I could see it happening.

I'm not sure what you're rambling about, but what I posted refutes the statement that was made, and has nothing to do with anything you've said.

Here is the (false) statement I was referring to:



Instead of whining about WIKI, why not prove it's incorrect if you believe that's the case, by showing your own source

David Walter is going to be really pissed when the SC trooper walks for shooting the perp in the parking lot and then gets his job and pay back.

"Snyper"

I did get the orange tip thing wrong.

I'm probably not wrong that you have absolutely nothing to do with being a sniper.

Did I say "cute name" yet?

Sherp,

I'm not worried about cops shooting "perps." I am concerned about shooting people in a big box who appear to be laying down their "gun" as they were told.

Sherp? Is that your real name like "Snyper?"

Oh, and "Snyper".

Grand Juries don't have any "rights." They have powers.

Look it up.

Well, I must admit I failed.

I tried to present my post in such a way that even a complete idiot couldn't misread it.

I failed to anticipate the depths of your stupidity.

As I clarified in the later post, which you also were unable to comprehend, grand jurors, sitting on grand juries, (the people from the community making the decision whether or not there exists probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, and the individual to be charged was involved in committing it), have no right to demand any additional evidence be presented. The prosecutor runs the show, for good or bad.

It's that simple.

Here is the story about the perp getting shot Dave:

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/9209206/1


Bet you lose your friggin mind when that officer gets exonerated and gets his job back. Anything the officer wants to do is up to the officer and it is not your place to 2nd guess them. Haven't you learned that from the officers on this site yet?

Yep, anything an officer wants done should be done. Whether it is ordering someone to drop a firearms in an open carry state or demanding oral sex. Doesn't matter if the department or legal systems clear them for it later either.

It is good that police like you are willing to speak out against police like Max Seifert who is mentioned here:

http://cjonline.com/news/2011-06-10/kc-detective-who-exposed-beating-suesn

You seem to be laboring under the false impression I said something about an individual JUROR.

Spend more time reading what I SAID

I've never made any claims about being an actual SNIPER

Focusing on my user name is just a lame distraction from the point that you DID make false claims, and you refuse to admit the cops did nothing wrong.

You can keep repeating "cute name" endlessly, but it just makes you look immature

With you there. The only way a cop can do wrong is if they go against other cops. Fortunately most will open fire along side their brother & sister officers, watch the door while a fellow officer rapes a civilian to keep them in line and things of that nature in addition to abstaining from ticketing them or their immediate families for traffic violations which really helps boost their quality of life considering the meager wages they receive.

Most, if not all, being on the take, doesn't hurt their pocketbooks, ether.

Laffin'......I'm sure you can back that up.

Probably don't have time between affairs with your students. Most, if not all, male teachers in Florida are abusing their positions of authority and perping kids after all.

I never realized just how easy it is to make stuff up. I don't need to tell you that, though.....

trh's downward spiral to the pitiful depth of hyperbolic, drama queen is now complete.

Never saw Serpico, eh? Catch it sometime. It's all true.

Oh, and no, I don't believe the problem was all cleared up when Serpico left the force and had to hide out most of the remainder of his life in Scandinavia under an assumed name for fear of police retribution, despite what cops would have us believe. No, human nature in the context of power and privilege, doesn't change.

So, movies provide you the factual basis for your absurd cackling.

Now I understand.

Try real life sometime.

The man was under constant consultation throughout the production regarding the essential facts. In interview, he has confirmed that the movie was essentially factual. In fact, he said that where it deviates from the truth are the instances where Hollywood sugarcoated the situation a bit.

Haha.

You realize Serpico is still alive don't you?

Sure do. Why?

And that he left the netherlands sometime around 80 after his wife died. He loves up Near Albany NY

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/quit-famed-nypd-whisteblower-frank-serpico-article-1.1226101

http://articles.philly.com/2014-08-...lphia-police-department-narcotics-bureau

Will shock you but an amazing read.

http://www.amazon.com/Busted-Tale-Corruption-Betrayal-Brotherly/dp/0062085441

Oh, well then you win. I guess that means there's no corruption among police, then, and that he didn't leave the US for fear of retribution from cops.

Even their own state it...

http://gothamist.com/2012/10/16/guilty_cop_calls_nypd_most_corrupt.php

That will teach the snitch a lesson...

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/nypd-tapes-trickle-down-corruption

Trh. Just wanted to make sure you have your fantasy land facts right.

Harry, nothing about Philky surprises me, the rest of the state wants to hive it to Jersey where it belongs

The Ny and Philly boys have mastered the art of the dirty Cop over decades...


http://www.copblock.org/15310/n-y-p-d-badges-of-dishonor-corruption-and-murder/

So, let me get this straight. Are you suggesting he didn't leave the US for fear of retribution by cops?? That's pretty easy to verify.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely...

No matter who, no matter what...there are no exceptions..

NYPD="most, if not all"........got it. NH culture has so much in common with NYC that I should have known.

Your urbanite mentality is showing again.

No, i'm suggesting he didn't hideout the" vast remainder of the rest of his life in Scandanavia"

But George, there are only two types of Pds. The one hose show, like Mayberry, and the multi thousand officer depts like NYPD and LAPD

He learned that on TV

I'm waiting for Hawkeye to go on a crusade against the corruption found in the public school system...but i'm not gonna hold my breath, he benefits from that corruption

Human nature is the same everywhere.

"... most of the remainder of his life" isn't the "vast remainder." "Most" is merely the majority, i.e., better than 50%. So I erred on that collateral matter. So what??

Your intentional misquote aside, what you're engaging in is called in the law impeachment based on collateral facts, and is disallowed for good reason, i.e., because it's a mere ploy to distract the jury from the pertinent facts. So, for example, if a state's witness testified that he saw the suspect running from the bank as the alarm was blaring, and that he had a navy blue umbrella tucked under his arm; the introduction of the fact by the defense that the umbrella was actually aquamarine in color wouldn't be permitted for the purpose of impeachment. Your impeachment effort is about on par with that.

Iffin' ya can't debate then you dance around the promenade I suppose...

http://gangstersinblue.org/tag/new-hampshire/

Now,,,it's not "misconduct" per say but poor hiring...heck of dance eh...

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/06/30/weare-nh-police-to-have-cameras-mounted-on-uniforms/

That's about the size of it.

Most corrupt...I mean poor hiring PD in the state of NH.


http://www.copblock.org/tag/manchester-police-department/

Winchester gets about as close to Mayberry as you can be...


http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/

That story must be false since in NH-K9's AO there is no police corruption. He said so himself.

Google the case of Manchester, NH Sgt. Stephen Coco. The initial cover up then the attempts to get him out of jail and the additional cover ups over who was involved in it. You could make a TV show over the entire affair.

Where?

That joke was worn out "here" decades ago...

If you want to take the time, I've been fairly "vocal" about Manchester and Weare. Winchester is about as far from me as possible in the west.

I'm not responsible for "them", you'll need to head east in an attempt to link guys with anything. Good luck.....Seabrook and Farmington aren't my problem either (use of force issues).

Ok, fair enough on the vast/ most. But it shows your propensity to absolutely blow , schit out of proportion to suit your own level of paranoia

Just as George pointed out with your example of most/all police are on the take.

I'm still waiting for your crusade against the Public ed. System....

Seabrook gets an honorable mention to Manchester. Based on the amount of officers on that force they could be at the top.

George, not trying to tie you to anything. But the denial that there isn't a problem country wide is not helping matters. The per capita ratio of officers involved in incidents when compared to other organizations is so out of whack denial becomes a flash point. Maybe it is a bad as it has always been but the fact that everyone has a camera now is simply bringing incidents to light. But something seems amiss and a lot of the incidents aren't necessary. Some even defended the PO pinning the women down of the freeway and beating on her like it was some sort of a gang fight outside of a bar. Just wrong.

What is the answer? Well, that's the 64 thousand dollar question.

I will say this, calling those who bring up this sensitive issue "Cop Haters" ain't gonna resolve anything. And again I'm not saying you per say. And denial only throws gasoline on the fire.

I oppose public ed, period. It's a bad idea. Particularly if it's funding isn't strictly local, so the folks who pay have a say in how much. Should be totally local in control and funding, so as to limit corruption, if we are to have public ed at all.

I've expressed this opinion many times here at the Fire over the years.

Why did you want my opinion on public education in this particular thread?

I would eliminate all mandated taxpayer funded public education.

Same.

I don't believe I have ever stated there isnt a problem. Hell, contrary to TRH's agenda driven extrapolation, I never said NH didn't have issues. I did point out that our culture here isn't within a row of azzholes of NYC but you already know that to be true (even if you are from MA.......jokingly stated).

All those examples listex, and likely more that don't make press, are still not "most, if not all". Gross overstatements help about as much as denial, I'd guess.

George

Are you still an educator paid by public tax funds?

Fyi Chris, the agency with the most pokice misconduct incidents resides right in your very own state

You better start your police corruption crusade there

I also maintain a checking account at the local bank, though I fundamentally oppose the institution of fractional reserve, fiat currency, banking. I'd favor eliminating both that and public education.

I oppose the very concept of police departments, regardless of their location. The Founders were well aware of the grave danger posed by the maintenance of standing professional armies under the command of officials of state.

Nice deflection.

I don't care where your bank account is. Considering you have held positions outside the public education system, and yet you continue to work in the public education system, I find your statement hypocritical.

It shines a lot of light on your selective processing of information.

And strongly as you've railed against the public education system, and given other credentials, one has to ask what motivates you to stay where your at.

Or who.

Me? Heck no...If I were a public employee I'd be on the receiving end of one of those cases I posted about...

I prefer teaching to those other occupations, and the public school system pays more than does the private. In no way, however, does that diminish my principled opposition to the institution. Along the same lines, I also maintain a checking account with my local bank, despite my principled opposition to the institution of fractional reserve, fiat currency, banking. I would only be a hypocrite if my associations with those two institutions caused me to alter my principled opposition to them.

PS Was Serpico a hypocrite for remaining a police officer while opposing police corruption?

Gotcha... Pub. Ed is bad, and you are so much against it, that you choose a career in it..

Actually, you win the ribbon for deflection:

You deflected from a wrongful police shooting to a debate about school choice.

You got others to answer to and extend your deflection.

You, even, tried to deflect blame for your deflection to those answering you on it.

Maybe, your Mommy will put your ribbon on the refrigerator for everyone else to see, now that we here have got a good look at your prize for deflection.

Yeah, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoNkmAUKWEg


You and I know that Phillips(and every one of his fellow officers he mentions) are heroes.

Unfortunately he is still alive and he is still pissing and moaning about police officers just like you.

I'll take the Avalanche. PM me an addy for the money order.

No matter how large or small a department is, every officer knows that so long as they are not trying to harm another officer they will have the support of every other officer in the country.

Oh crap, wrong thread. Nevermind.

So you're on the take from the public school system and Organized World Jewry.

Thought so.

It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.
~ David Brin

I hate to point out the obvious, but considering its you, I guess I have to.

This thread had been deflected from the OP for a number of pages before my post. And in part by your compandre, among others. I simply commented on statements he had made already.

Yet you single out me for cynicism for what other folks have done and done prior to me.

Your angst is unhealthy, as is your focus.

You done got your ribbon, already.

You ain't gettin another just for doing the same thing again.

I see your contributing to the cause as well.

Guess you're runner up, again...

Those kids don't get to choose where they go to school, and my opposition to public funding of education shouldn't prevent me from doing my best in their regard.

Spin your hipocrisy whatever way lets you sleep at night...after all it's for the children huh..

Yep, payoffs to cops keeps business flowing smoothly, and everyone's happy, right?

Yes, that's a more precise formulation than that of Lord Acton.

How many regular pickups do you make a week?

Man ya aint got this one wore out yet??? Been going on for so long. I'm surprised one of them rotten pos hasn't acted up some where else and got killed. To give ya another thirty some odd pages to talk about the choot !!!! ROFLMFAO CARRY ON!!



Take care, Willie

Umm, i'm not on the take, but thanks for playing

Yes, even, I would have given you your due that your simplicity was your most admirable trait.

Kudos on avoiding messy bribery and extortion and sticking to simple armed robbery.


For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it 'taxation.' ~ Murray Rothbard

You back up time parolees snort way too much amyl nitrate.

Pretend you have an education and learn to write or have someone help you with your abysmal sentence structure.

Even prisons have libraries. Crawl into one of those instead of your cell mate's bunk.

You tell'em Ike!!

You need to get in on the SC Trooper shooting the perp thread and help me defend his actions!!

Your deflecting from the op.

Actually, I dragged the commentary back to the most basic question posed by the op.

the most basic question of the OP was simply a matter if the cops were justified in the shooting, not your phantasm police state, photo-op of �bama, jerk-off-a-thon.

The only thing you dragged was your bromance with TRH out of the closet.

I found it chivalrous the way you parried me from showing the hypocrisy of your biggest "+1'er".

<insert pithy quote>

<insert supporting picture>

I've noticed that you tend to view the world in homosexual terms.

Casuistic dissembling. If you were true to your stated principles, you would take the reduction in salary and teach in a private school, because the parents of those children and the children themselves are actively engaged in a system of education that you consider to be in closer accordance with the founding principles of the United States.

By claiming to devote yourself to children who did not choose to be enrolled in a public school system, you are publicly embracing a Progressive Democrat approach to the collective good that is clearly at odds with the political arguments you've made here for years.

You sold out your principles for the increased salary and state pension.

I'm sure that's the way you've noticed it.

I read this thread.

The most basic question posed by the op and its answer:

Q: Why do we have armed and armored government goons running around almost willy nilly and killing folks and their pets and taking and breaking their property with near perfect impunity?

A: simple, armed robbery.

For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it 'taxation.' ~ Murray Rothbard



This current evolution of State armed robbery and ancillary oppression is the worst America has ever suffered and has the potential of soon going world class.

I'm lazy.

Where did he ask that?

Quit wasting your time on the cop haters. If we can get these guys clear:

http://www.officer.com/news/11705808/judge-no-immunity-in-cavity-search-lawsuit


there is a fairly good chance our nations police will be able draw out suspects entrails before their eyes during a search within our lifetimes. Think of how much safer our police will be and all the rest of us with them.