- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I quit reading at "give him time" to put down what looks every bit like a real gun. I got money that says the first words were, "drop the gun". He didn't. And without audio you have no clue what was said.
Oh, and seems the 911 caller is back tracking as well. He should be charged.
One second is not time to place a weapon down.
Not saying its not a bad deal, but there is way more than a over zealous cop in play here.
Those all are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if he was posing an imminent threat
He wasn't
You just got done arguing that the callers reports were a valid reason for the police thinking the man posed a threat. Now you're saying you don't care what the caller said.
And it doesn't matter if anyone was "disturbed" The only thing that matters is if he was posing an imminent threat
He wasn't
She didn't accuse him of threatening anyone, and she didn't immediately leave the area. She was there for ten seconds. After she left Crawfords sight, she left the store and then went back in. Pretty odd behavior for a woman who thought a man with a gun had just threatened her. Maybe the police should have shot her too
Oh wait! They didn't have to shoot her. She died of a heart attack that was caused not by the fright of being threatened by a strange man pointing a rifle at her (which never happened) but because she was scared by the police shooting a man she was not afraid of.
Irrelevant to any point I have attempted to make. You keep repeating it for that reason...because it seems 'right'. That's nice.
Taken in context, my statement meant that it doesnt matter what the caller said, *I also saw many of the same things on the video.* It was a confirmation.
Irrelevant to any point I have attempted to make. You keep repeating it for that reason...because it seems 'right'. That's nice.
This is beneath you but it speaks to desperation. I never said she accused him of anything....nor implied it. Dont make stuff up.
The mother that took her kids and immediately left the area....she's gotat a reputation for falsely accusing people of threatening behavior too?
When we see odd behavior...sometimes we assess it before we act. Sometimes, impressions are cumulative. If she didnt feel threatened, she obviously found his behavior abnormal...and left. Her actions demonstrate her concern. When I see disturbing or even weird behavior, I often wait to see what's up. Are they on the phone and I cant see it? Are there other people I cant see? Etc.
As I said, several people here also saw abnormal behavior from the guy with the gun. Not just her, not just the caller. Your assumptions about 'everyone else's' perceptions are wrong. That is a fact, since we are stating them clearly.
Really? And the cause was confirmed by what medical examiner's report?
Not because it seems right. Because it's standard police policy and for good reason.
What someone imagines they see is irrelevant.
I keep repeating it because it's true
Here is what you said
She did not leave the area immediately and when she left, she left her daughter behind. And I responded to your question about her reputation by pointing out that she didn't have such a reputation because she make *any* accusations.
Crawford did nothing in front of the police (before he was shot) that was odd or threatening.
And she never said anything about Crawfords behavior being odd (because she died at the scene) so now you're just making stuff up.
And how does her going back into the store with her children demonstrate that she was concerned about Crawford? When you are concerned about an "odd" man with a gun, do you bring your children to see what he's going to do?
I don't care what a million people think they saw.
Yeah, the fact she died while running after shots were fired is just a coincidence.
So a post basically saying 'na huh.' Nothing new and absolutely nothing refuted. Just 'na huh, I already said so.'
ALtho you did admit we dont know why she had the heart attack. Thank you.
I think we're done here unless you come up with some new material.
Mine will remain for anyone else....as per my signature below, in green.
I don't need anything new. When the facts are on my side, I stick to the facts. The fact is, not shooting people who don't pose an imminent threat is good policy and a standard for police depts across the nation.
Crawford was not posing an imminent threat at the time he was shot.
No, we know exactly when the cops started communication started. You can hear it and see when Crawford starts reacting. The possibility that the police were quietly communicating with him is absurd. It goes against standard police procedure and if that's what they were doing then that is just more evidence that this situation was handled incompetently by the police
And "pointed at the floor" does mean that it wasn't a threat to anyone at that moment.
Basically, your argument is "there must have been something else that justifies the shooting" which pretty much demonstrates the absence of any evidence in the recording to justify the shooting.
You're missing the point. The point is he never at any point during that video, posed a threat to anyone. Even if the item he was hold was an AR-15, there's no reason to immediately shoot because he wasn't threatening anyone.
So I ask again:
So not dropping your gun, a gun that's not pointed at any one, as soon as the police tell you to do so is enough to get you killed by the cops? Is this your stance?
You aren't sticking to any facts. You are stubbornly clinging to your own agenda driven position of events, which are dubious at best.
So what facts point to Crawford needing a bullet in the chest?
None. I'm pretty sure nobody has ever needed a bullet in the chest.
I would prefer a head shot for the likes of them. But I see your point.oh I can think of a few
Manson and his "family"
Bundy
Hitler
Mao
Pol Pot
John Wayne Gacy
Henry Lee Lucas
I would prefer a head shot for the likes of them. But I see your point.
We can only hear the cops that are near the guy on the phone, and even they can just be heard. There were more cops further away, far enough, that even speaking loudly or shouting might not have made it to the phone.
But it doesn't matter because what I saw in the video showed him raising the gun up after the first officer to be heard shouted at him to drop it, which is justification for them to shoot.
Wrong. The police don't whisper to a man with a gun, and you can see that Crawford doesn't make any reaction until you can hear the cop yell at him "Get down...put the gun down!"
And even if they had said something earlier, the recording shows he did nothing that posed an imminent threat.
No, the recording shows that he did not raise the gun up. He was dropping it and the barrel was pointed at the floor the entire time.
If that is true, then why no indictment? Maybe you don't have all the facts?
Wrong. The police don't whisper to a man with a gun, and you can see that Crawford doesn't make any reaction until you can hear the cop yell at him "Get down...put the gun down!"
And even if they had said something earlier, the recording shows he did nothing that posed an imminent threat.
No, the recording shows that he did not raise the gun up. He was dropping it and the barrel was pointed at the floor the entire time.
Wrong. The police don't whisper to a man with a gun, and you can see that Crawford doesn't make any reaction until you can hear the cop yell at him "Get down...put the gun down!"
And even if they had said something earlier, the recording shows he did nothing that posed an imminent threat.
I guess OJ really is innocent then
Must have been a liberal cop. Liberals seem to think that having a gun nearby is always an imminent threat.
Why do you have to go to the extreme? No one is talking about OJ. I merely asked you why, if what you say is true did the GJ fail to indict? And could it be that you are not privy to all the evidence they saw? Or, is it just that the black man was shot by cops, and that's all you need in your mind to indict them on your own?
It could have been said pretty loudly and still not picked up over a phone that was more than 20 feet away and pressed against someone's face. We don't know how close the officers we could hear were to the guy, so we have no way of knowing how well the phone was picking out background noise.
You are wrong about the barrel pointing down the entire time. It was being brought up, whether intentionally or by reflex just before the guy was shot. I watched it and gave the exact time when it happened.
Again, we can see that Crawford doesn't move or react in any way. Not moving is not a response that can be considered dangerous. And the gun was at his side and pointed down throughout the entire encounter with the police
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?