Police Abuse

Video Proves Cops Shot Guy in Walmart Immediately, For No Reason

|

Video footage has been released in the shooting death of John Crawford, the man who was gunned down in a Beavercreek, Ohio, Walmart by cops who apparently thought he was armed and dangerous. In reality, Crawford had picked up a pellet rifle from the hardware section of the store and was carrying it around while he talked on the phone.

The police maintained that Crawford had refused orders to drop the weapon; the video footage proves definitively that that was not the caseā€”the cops shot the man almost immediately after encountering him. Claims in some media outlets that Crawford had been walking around the store and pointing the gun at people also seem false, unless those occurrences happened during the few seconds that Crawford was out of range of the surveillance camera.

Nevertheless, a grand jury declined to indict the two officers involved, according to The Huffington Post. The U.S. Department of Justice will look into the matter, however.

When this story first broke, many wondered whether mitigating factors would emerge to explain, if not justify, the reaction of law enforcement officers. To my eyes at least, the surveillance video confirms the worst case scenario: The cops killed this man for almost no reason whatsoever.

Watch the video below.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

270 responses to “Video Proves Cops Shot Guy in Walmart Immediately, For No Reason

  1. Way to jump to conclusions and convict the Brave Peace Occifers? without a trial, REASON. Civilians don’t understand the life and death decisions these occifers have to make EVERY day, and EVERY day they’re out putting their LIVES on the line for you.

    And what thanks do they get? “GUILTY!” when they follow procedures and implement their training to take down an armed madman terrorizing WalMart customers.

    Well – I don’t want to live in whatever Somalian Lbertardopia YOU do. Thanks to these occifers for bravely doing what the coward POS civilians are too afraid to do! Thank God they’re out their, protecting and serving.

    smooches

    1. B+
      Needs six more consecutive ranting posts.

      1. !!!!!!!!!11111!!!!one!!1eleventy!!

      1. I’m sorry, did you say “too many cops”?

        1. It’s his Boston accent coming through.

    2. wow, someone took his crazy pills this morning.

      so, shooting a guy without warning when you have him surrounded and he is not threatening anyone, that’s reasonable to you?

      what color is the sky on your world?

      then you try to hide behind “procedure”? since when is that a defense? the stasi were just following procedure too. same with those lovely iranian police who would hook a car battery to your genitals until you confessed. very high conviction rate too!

      you have some of the most muddled, absurd thinking i have seen in some time.

      of course, the somalia thing was a dead giveaway. anyone who thinks somalia is libertarian is either mentally deficient or completely deranged.

      1. Almanian is sarcastically imitating Dunphy. See below.

      2. I think you’ve left your sarcasm filter on.

      3. Welcome Morganovich. We welcome newcomers and value any input you have, but a word of advice:

        This place is drowning in sarcasm, parody, satire, and mockery. It is the only way we have of dealing with the horror show that is our ‘free’ country. Go slow and wait until you are sure what is being said. It won’t take you long to figure out who the real morons are around here.

        Almanian was parodying a cop who used to be a regular here. He often defended the indefensible actions of cops like these. Thankfully he finally wore out on us and left. Either that or he met with an untimely end or is in jail somewhere.

        1. Thankfully he finally wore out on us and left. Either that or he met with an untimely end or is in jail somewhere.

          HAHAHAHAHAHA!

          Oh, Suthen, you spoke too soon. Page down to the end, my friend…

          It’s back!

        2. This place is drowning in sarcasm, parody, satire, and mockery.

          And booze. We are also drowning in booze. But not women.

      4. morganovich – that was superb!

        Welcome to REASON, dude! Or…dudette.

        Oh, my cis-gendered bad manners!

        Welcome…you!

    3. Exactly. I’m not judging the merits of the shooting based on this video alone, just this trend of lately of a certain knee-jerk anti-police attitude for the sake of it. As if it were an essential part of libertarianism. Notice the headline says “proves” “for no reason”. Which I find awkward coming from a publication named “Reason”, since it proves nothing, not knowing the reasons of the officer.

    4. Another big meanie Libertarian.

  2. totality of circs

    Yeah, that video looks capital-B Bad. The members of the grand jury should be ashamed of themselves.

    1. The members of the grand jury probably couldn’t hide their home addresses.

      1. The prosecutor absolutely controls whether the grand jury indicts or not. And of course the prosecutor is on the same team as the cops.

        1. Will bet $50 that the night after the jury refused to hand down an indictment, the prosecutor went out drinking with the police chief, the head of the police union, and possibly the murderers themselves.

  3. And thanks all for visiting the morning nutpunch.

  4. Based upon the 911 call, the cops went in expecting to find someone menacing people with a rifle. I assume that they were scared shitless, and had already decided to shoot on sight. The shouting was just a formality.

    I’d like to see the guy who called 911 prosecuted for murder. Along with the cops, of course.

    1. Second this. There has to be something the DOJ can charge him with. Then make sure the brothers in prison see the video.

  5. …the cops shot the man almost immediately after encountering him.

    It looks in the video like the guy had no idea the cops were there until he got his with a bullet. Completely sucker shot.

    1. ^this^

      he’s not reacting to anything – busy looking at something on the shelf – and doesn’t move until he is shot.

      1. Passively discharging weapons are real attention getters.

      2. he’s not reacting to anything – busy looking at something on the shelf – and doesn’t move until he is shot.

        He’s standing in the exact same place he was standing for the last 5 min. not taking any hostages and not shooting anyone.

        Aside from possibly pointing the gun excessively, anyone who’s held a pellet gun while having a conversation is guilty of this crime.

    2. yeah, what the fuck. That was worse than I was expecting.

  6. Congratulations on getting away with murder, shitbags.

    1. I bet they’re the envy of their department. I mean, they got to kill someone. Most cops only get to dream about killing people.

      1. But it was a black guy. They get away with that all the time.

        1. Negros are bonus points, right?

          1. No. The trophy kill is a white soccer mom, preferably with kids present. It’s a risky shot, but if you get away with it you’re basically famous for the rest of your career.

            1. “I shot her right in her Lululemons!”

            2. Lon Horiuchi, for instance.

            3. Ah! The ol’ Lon Horiuchi move.

            4. “Who’s that?

              “Oh, him? That’s Jenkins. He doesn’t even have to try any more. He just sits back and rakes it in. Mostly surfs porn all day, if he comes in at all.”

              “What happened?”

              “Took out a soccer mom at a backyard birthday party with 100 kids at it. Nailed the pinata too. He filled his entire quota with that one shot!”

        2. If you go in guns blazing, the danger is you might shoot someone whom you think is black, and then discover later that he was an innocent person who wasn’t black.

        3. They also get away with shooting white guys all the time. What’s your point?

    2. What’s really disturbing is what a lousy shot the cop was. Point blank and the guy’s still alive? Needs Moar training…

        1. It doesn’t really matter which story you’re referring to. Guns aren’t magical, and they rarely cause instant death.

  7. Those are some hawt shorts on the prime murderer.

    1. Reno 911?

  8. It looks like he sees one maniac (wearing shorts and suspenders – because that’s how we should identify cops these days) with a rifle coming at him, drops the fake gun and ducks into the next aisle. There he sees another maniac, and doubles back – at which time first maniac executes him.

    Am I missing anything?

    1. Yes, you missed it. He was shot BEFORE ducking into the next aisle.

      1. So they winged him, then finished him off when he ran from the 2nd killer?

      2. Oh shit, I didn’t realize this had audio.

        Damn, they just shot him without a warning and watched him die.

    2. He wasn’t ducking. They shot him and his body crumpled and slid.

  9. What I want to know is who the hell was on that Grand Jury? Did the DA just not show them the tape?

    It should also be noted that jeopardy does not attach at the failure of a grand jury to indict. These guys have never been acquitted by a competent court and can and should still be indicted.

    I am not one for mob justice. That said, however, there is a place for the community and community outrage in the administration of justice. The DA’s job is to represent the community not the “government’. These clowns no doubt think they represent the government as opposed to the community but they don’t. This is one time where real no kidding community activism would make a difference. Make it clear to that DA that if he ever plans on winning another election, he better go back and indict these animals.

    Yes, I know this all sounds naive. Ultimately, however, the electorate owns the government and by extension the justice system. If it is going to change, they have to do it. And they can, if they take an interest. These assholes understand the threat of losing an election. No DA is facing unemployment to protect cops. They only protect cops because they don’t think it will cost them anything. And it generally doesn’t. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

    1. Yes, I know this all sounds naive.

      Idealistic, at best. There probably was a time when this was the case, but that shipped sailed long ago.

      The fact that it’s news when a DA actually does his job and doesn’t polish the knobs of the police, is all the evidence you need to know.

    2. Did the DA just not show them the tape?

      Probably not. He most likely just showed them the testimony of the police.

      1. I bet he didn’t. And someone ought to report him to his bar. That is malpractice.

        1. I said the same thing in the afternoon links yesterday. The D.A. should be disbarred.

    3. It’s shit like this that makes me second guess my opposition to private prosecutions.

      1. Private prosecutions for government employees seems about right.

      2. I don’t think we need “private prosecutions”; simply allowing civil lawsuits against government officials would take care of a lot of this. That is, treat police more like private contractors.

        1. SCOTUS ruled, the police have NO LEGAL DUTY to serve and protect.

          If a cop saw you being mugged and shot 8 feet away, he could calmly watch the activity and do nothing about it, and still have no civil liability for it. Because there is no legal duty to do so.
          Yet these are the same fkrs that assert people should not have the right to carry firearms.

    4. This wasn’t prosecuted by the local county prosecutor. AG Dewine appointed a special prosecutor from Hamilton county.

      And you have to understand what kind of community this happened in. This is a solidly Republican, Bible-belt county. Public sentiment favors the police. Even if the county prosecutor had to run with this on his record, it would help him, not hurt him.

      1. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Beavercreek is in no way shape or form a bible belt county. The whole city is up in arms about this and is beyond upset at what happened.

        We’ve had protests and city council meetings and lots of other things going on because of it, and though, i personally don’t see it doing anything, the people are trying to take action. Personally I’d like to see the idiot that called in to 911 charged, as well as the police.

    5. no shit, either people in Beaverton really hate black people, or they never saw the video

    6. These clowns no doubt think they represent the government as opposed to the community but they don’t. This is one time where real no kidding community activism would make a difference. Make it clear to that DA that if he ever plans on winning another election, he better go back and indict these animals.

      hahahhahaha!!! LMAO! That’s a good one! People controlling the government! The electorate not blindly sucking what ever authoritarian cock is paced near it’s lips! Wow the sarcasm here today is great!
      Oh wait, you were serious…

  10. The police maintained that Crawford had refused orders to drop the weapon; the video footage proves definitively that that was not the case?the cops shot the man almost immediately after encountering him.

    Let’s just save time for all future incidents with a default setting: THEY’RE LYING THROUGH THEIR LYING TEETH.

    1. There should be perjury charges on top of the murder charges. I’m sure that will happen, right?

    2. Calling a cop a liar is redundant. Lying is their job. They lie on reports, they lie in court, they lie about everything.

  11. God DAMN IT! This one’s REALLY bothering me this morning. FUCK! FUCK!

    Arrrgghhh….I hate people so much….mostly cops and government officials. And the Yankees and Red Sox. And Notre Dame fans…

  12. They were scared shitless. What better reason do you need?

  13. Note: there are no laws against brandishing a firearm in Ohio, and Ohio is an open carry state. Even if the opposite were true, it would not justify the police shooting on sight. No witnesses (other than the police) heard the police issue him orders, or identify themselves.

    1. If you listen to the tape, you can hear the cops yelling “down, put the gun down” a split second before the shots. And IMO, in that split second, he was bending over to put the gun on the floor.

      Watch it again a few times.

  14. I am most definitely not saying the shooting is justified. Also note that a grand jury not indicting does not mean an endorsement of justification. It means no endorsement of a CRIME. Those are different issues. Iow, a shooting can be unjustified but not necessarily have the requisite elements to meet crime x. However in the article reason yet again fails to really understand the process analysis and what is relevant in justification issues in shooting weather cops or anybody else is the shooter.

    My point here is that as to justification, it is NOT relevant WHAT he was doing prior to police arrival (in reference to tge article pointing out the emergency calls’ claims as to his pointing tge gun at people may have been false). What is relevant is what the police reasonably believed about that as well as what they observed.

    In other words, even if he had murdered 6 defenceless nuns prior to their arrival, THAT would be irrelevant as to justification . It’s what tghey reasonably believe and perceive, NOT what actually happened. It’s tge same concept that finding 20 murder weapons in a search warrant says nothing about the validity or invalidity of the warrant.

    As a GENERAL rule, when cops confront an apparently armed and dangerous suspect they should ‘if practicable’ give a warning AND an opportunity to respond. It appears they did NOT do so.

    .

    1. THAT makes justification very questionable here IMO. There are some facts and circ’s that make a shooting justified without such warnings. But I’m not aware they were present in this case.

      So I am agnostic, but I would lean towards unjustified unless I am made aware of facts and circ’s that would justify a no warning shoot in this case. 911 transcript a timeline and especially things like relative positions of shooter and shootee etc. are what I’d like to see. The devil will generally be in those details

        1. Utter rubbish. I don’t rush to judgment and I judge shootings (whether cop or noncop shooter) based on case law, const law, UOF guidelines etc

          I have never defended a cop or anybody else for murder whether with or without warning.

          I am confident you have no idea what you are talking about whereas I have taught deadly force, testified to it, been subject to it, and have an understanding of case law. I also speak descriptively not normatively unless I make it otherwise clear. Iow if I say a UOF (lethal or otherwise) appears justified or not I make those determinations based on the law as it is, not how I want it to be

          1. Yes you have. When a person answered the door in the middle of the night with a gun in his hand, not brandishing or pointing or anything, simply holding it, you defended the police for murdering him on the spot.

            So go fuck yourself you lying piece of shit. Oh wait. You’re a cop. I guess calling you a lying piece of shit is redundant.

            1. Again you lie. I didn’t conclude that the police were justified in that case. I said it was certainly reasonable to think they may have been iow that generally speaking if you answer the door to police with a gun in yer hand a shooting may very well happen.

              There were never enough specific facts and circumstances presented in that case for me to conclude that the police were justified and nobody can find any example where I said yes the police absolutely were justified in that shooting. I said word similar to it’s likely they were or I can see how they would have been etc. but the devil is in the details and there were not enough details. I explained that somebody who answers the door to the police with a gun in their hand has nobody to blame but themselves if they get shot and I stand by that statement.

            2. Again you lie. I didn’t conclude that the police were justified in that case. I said it was certainly reasonable to think they may have been iow that generally speaking if you answer the door to police with a gun in yer hand a shooting may very well happen.

              There were never enough specific facts and circumstances presented in that case for me to conclude that the police were justified and nobody can find any example where I said yes the police absolutely were justified in that shooting. I said word similar to it’s likely they were or I can see how they would have been etc. but the devil is in the details and there were not enough details. I explained that somebody who answers the door to the police with a gun in their hand has nobody to blame but themselves if they get shot and I stand by that statement.

          2. I have never defended a cop or anybody else for murder whether with or without warning.

            Except for in the link above, right?

            1. Nope as explained. I said that anybody who answers the door to the police with a gun in their hand has nobody to blame but themselves if they get shot. I absolutely stand by that statement. I never said that in that specific case I had made a conclusion that the cops were justified in shooting the guy if you cannot understand the distinction that is your fault

              1. I said that anybody who answers the door to the police with a gun in their hand has nobody to blame but themselves if they get shot.

                … particularly when the cops are at the wrong house, in the middle of the night, and you don’t know who’s at the door.

                Jesus fucking Christ.

              2. Welcome back. Tony has been wearing thin.

                1. welcome back pig! another good kill for the guys in blue

              3. Actually, you know the victim didn’t know it was the police at the door because the police were in plain cloths, and specifically said they didn’t identify themselves as police because they wanted to surprise the suspect. So you know the only one to blame is the cops, but you’re too dishonest to say so. And you didn’t merely say it may have been justified you said “he’s a fucking moron who begged to get shot” and “he made his moronic decision and he paid the price.” It’s right there in the link, and you still just can’t help yourself. I guess it’s hard not to lie, as that goes against your training and SOP as a cop.

              4. And when she goes out to a bar dressed like *that*, she has nobody but herself to blame if she gets raped.

          3. The link is there for everyone to click on and read, you honorless & deceitful piece of garbage. Your appeals to credentialism in no way rebut your actual words. Anyone can click on the link and get the true measure of the depravity and perversion that comprises your nature.

            1. Nope I said that anybody who answers the door to the police with a gun in their hand has nobody to blame but themselves if they get shot I stand by that statement.

              I never said in that specific case I had enough facts and circumstances to come to the conclusion that that shooting was justified.

              Those are entirely different concepts that stupid people as usual fail to grasp.

              I will say this with no equivocation whatsoever if you answer the door to the police with a gun in your hand you have nobody but yourself to blame if you get shot

              1. Nope I said that anybody who answers the door to the police with a gun in their hand has nobody to blame but themselves if they get shot I stand by that statement.

                This is where you miss the point. Your job, as a cop, is to risk your life and tell that guy to drop the gun before you shoot. If you don’t like taking that risk, I suggest you get out of law enforcement and stop debasing what was once a noble profession.

                Every month you get a paycheck. And by accepting that paycheck you are taking on the responsibility of protecting the public. That means in stark terms, other people’s lives are more valuable than yours. If ensuring that one innocent person isn’t shot by mistake means having cops die on duty, that is a price that we have to pay and by extension you have to pay.

                That is the problem with you and most cops today. You want the respect and the authority but you refuse to make the sacrifice associated with it. Your job quite simply is to risk getting shot so that we know only people who are threat get shot by the police.

              2. If that’s the case, Dunphy, why did the cops have their guns drawn when they knocked on the door?

                The reason why you are issued a weapon, you imbecille, is so that you can defend yourself if you are attacked.

                Teh reason why I can have a weapon in my home, you loser, is so that *I* can defend myself if *I* am attacked.

                The murderer-cops were in plain clothes brandishing weapons when they knocked on the door. Their rationale for brandishing their guns? There was a dangerous murderer in the area.

                Teh police don’t have a special right to defend themselves that little people like me don’t. If the guy having a gun in his hand as he answered his own door in the dead of night was a menacing figure warranting an act of self-defense, then the cops who knocked on the door were equally menacing, in fact mroe menacing because they hadn’t been invited upon the property they happened to have entered!!!!!

                If you were right, then had the homeowner gunned them down immediately upon openign the door, then it wouldn’t have been murder but self defense.

                So I demand you answer the following question: if I showed up at my neighbor’s house with a gun drawn in the middle of the night, and shot him as soon as he opened the door because he had a gun in his hand, does my neighbor have it coming?

                It’s a simple yes no question. And if you refuse to answer, we will know that you really think the answer is “No” and that you don’t want to admit it because you want to conceal your depravity.

                1. So I demand you answer the following question: if I showed up at my neighbor’s house with a gun drawn in the middle of the night, and shot him as soon as he opened the door because he had a gun in his hand, does my neighbor have it coming?

                  Awesome comment tarran. NAILED IT!

                  The simple fact of the matter is, the rules for cops are less restrictive than for a civilian, which makes John’s point 100% accurate. These arrogant fucks put their safety above the safety of those they are paid to protect.

                  Heros all.

                2. Slam dunk, tarran. This is why I come to Reason every day.

                3. And if you refuse to answer, we will know that you really think the answer is “No” and that you don’t want to admit it because you want to conceal your depravity

                  So, the answer is no.

              3. Kinda like those sluts who dress like sluts have NO ONE TO BLAME BUT THEMSELVES!!!!! if they get raped. NO ONE!!!!1! A very valid point sir! We cannot expect rapists OR cops to exercise restraint and we simply cannot blame them for doing what they do best.

              4. “I said that anybody who answers the door to the police with a gun in their hand has nobody to blame…..”

                Therefore, you are saying the cops are blameless under any circumstances. The guy was shot, he has no one else to blame. Yes, you have let the cops off the hook for a bad shooting.

                Middle of the night, a knock on the door, someone, it could be you, picks up his gun, and opens the door, and is immediately killed by police officers who showed up at the wrong house. But it is no one else’s fault, but his.

              5. So, anyone who answers the door, with a playstation toy gun in their hand, not knowing that the police are ringing the bell, has themselves to blame.
                Your justifications are getting very thin, to the point of absurdity.

                The answer to this situation, is NO, a person is NOT to blame for themselves getting shot, just by holding a gaming plastic toy gun in their hand, and answering the door, if they don’t even know it is the police. Fuk, it doesn’t make a difference, you are NOT to blame for anything, for answering your own door, with a toy gun in hand.
                You can get as hypertechnical as your expert witness mentality requires you to keep your job. This just isn’t reasonable, actually or technically.

              6. I would agree with you on that last paragraph if what you mean is not that the shooting is justified, but that having a gun around cops can be dangerous in a holding-an-umbrella-in-a-thunderstorm kind of way.

                So here’s a hypothetical: if the cops were, as other posters indicate, in plain clothes, then presumably when this guy answered the door with his gun, they must have drawn on him. If he’d shot first and killed them, would you say that they had on one to blame but themselves for showing up in the middle of the night, not identifying themselves, and drawing on someone who already had a weapon in hand?

                1. Okay, apparently the cops had the guns in their hands too. If I were on a jury and someone was being tried for shooting two cops in plainclothes who were on his doorstep with guns in their hands, even if he popped them through a window without talking, I’d go for an acquittal. Because by your reasoning, he has the choice of opening the door unarmed, praying that they’re cops and won’t hurt him, going to the door armed and being murdered, or waiting for them to break in.

                  It would have been nice if nobody had to get shot, but the cops screwed up, and it’s a shame he didn’t plug them before they got him.

          4. Well that explains why you are so hedging in giving these cops the benefit of the doubt.
            You know, you can rely on “procedure”, “prior training”, “perceptions of danger”, “reasonable” response, as excuses for these cops’ behavior and murder of this innocent man.
            But as some point, you must realize on gut level that is a lot of psycho-legal poppycock.
            It is trying to explain away the unexplainable.
            If a man is holding a (BB) gun, that was freely available to pickup off the shelf, while shopping and talking on the phone, and cops come in blazing with gunfire, irrespective of simultaneously shouting cya ‘Drop the Gun’, if you are at all honest, that this was a travesty of the power given to the police, and a murder, intentional or not. Call it legal all day long, as someone pointed out earlier here, everything the Nazis did to their citizens, was legal.

      1. Justified or unjustified isn’t really the question.

        The question was whether there was enough evidence to have a trial. Justified or unjustified is for a trial jury to decide–not a grand jury.

        Clearly there is enough evidence–to have a trial. It’s incredibly obvious that the grand jury got it wrong, so now the question is whether the FBI should get involved.

        Is there enough evidence to have a trial on whether the victim’s civil rights were violated?

        Again, the question is not whether the shooting was justified. The question is whether there’s enough evidence to have a trial.

        Is there a distinct possibility that this man shot becasue of his race?

        Well they sure as hell didn’t shoot because he was holding an air rifle!

        Yeah, I think there’s enough evidence to have a trial in federal court.

        1. Wrong. You yet again fail to get the point. Start reflexively arguing and listen to this.

          The job of the grand jury is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to try a defendant for a crime.

          Their job is not to determine whether a shooting is justified.

          Justification is a different, but related question. A grand jury will be presented with evidence, a choice of charge(s) and their job is determine if there is probable cause to prefer the charge(s)

          A shooting in some cases may be unjustified yet it does not follow that there is PC FOR A CRIME.

          I see you and many other lay people constantly fail to understand this.

          There are investigative bodies that at least try to answer questions regarding justification. For example in my state we generally do not even convene grand jury is in any cases (we use informations not indictments) but in my county in all police lethal force cases and a few noncop ones we convene a inquest jury whose job it is to answer questions that help decide justification AND criminal liability.

          There are several bodies that will look at justification, but that was NOT what a grand jury did.

          1. “The job of the grand jury is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to try a defendant for a crime.

            Their job is not to determine whether a shooting is justified.”

            Are you drunk?

            Did you read my comment?

            That’s what I was pointing out to you, officer!

            The question before the grand jury was whether there was enough evidence to have a trial. That’s what I said!

            There was! The grand jury got it wrong.

            Now the question is whether there’s enough evidence to have a federal criminal trial on the civil rights violation.

            1. I have no idea if the grand jury got it wrong nor do you if you actually cared about facts. I haven’t read the specific statute in question that they were asked to consider. Have you?

              I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the grand jury since I don’t know enough facts.

              I am also agnostic as to whether the shooting was justified but am leaning towards unjustified due to the reasons mentioned

          2. So shooting without justification, on video, is not PC for a crime. Never learned that in Criminal Law or Criminal Procedure. I’m absolutely sure that standard would’ve been used for any non-officer shooting somebody in the same circumstances, you interminable shitbag.

            1. ” you interminable shitbag.”

              LOL! and so true.

              This guy likes to hide behind his expert witness bona fides, and is STILL simply wrong on the facts and standards of law.
              Not mention hypocritical and selective depending on who he is talking about.
              He is arguing with lawyers here, and is explaining to them their ignorance of the law.
              We keep calling out on his duplicity, but he keeps coming back with a straight face saying, NO YOU SIMPLETON MISCREANTS JUST DON’T UNDERSTAAAANND THE WAY THE LAAWW WERKS.

          3. Read much?

            Ken Shultz|9.25.14 @ 10:45AM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

            Justified or unjustified isn’t really the question.

            The question was whether there was enough evidence to have a trial. Justified or unjustified is for a trial jury to decide–not a grand jury

            .

        2. Grand juries were intended to protect citizens from government overreach and false charges; they are biased towards getting people off the hook. It’s not surprising that corrupt prosecutors can use that bias to get political cover while protecting the guilty.

          The question is what the best way of addressing excessive force by police is. I don’t think federal civil rights enforcement is a good solution, because itself is so easily abused for political purposes.

          I think allowing police officers to be sued in civil court for their actions on the job might be a better choice because it removes most of the political b.s. and corruption from the process. Except for the judge, the two opponents and the jury all are private citizens.

          1. Get rid of their immunity so they can be charged with the crimes that they routinely commit.

            As it is, they react. They don’t think. They don’t second guess themselves. They simply react because they know they will face no consequences for their actions.

            Take away that immunity and they’ll be forced to think before they act. Will that result in some dead cops? Probably. But that’s the risk one takes when they take that job. Or at least it used to be, back when policing was an honorable profession.

            1. As it is, they react. They don’t think. They don’t second guess themselves.

              and coupled with their average to low IQ ratings…

          2. Grand juries can be a way for important decisions to be made by someone other than prosecutors.

            Grand juries are supposed to be loathe to indict, whether that’s true in practice is another question.

            Regardless, prosecutors are reluctant to prosecute cops for a variety of reasons. I’d love to see statistics on how often prosecutors who run for an election win against the endorsement of the local police.

            1. The point is: the reason grand juries can be used in this way is because they were intended to protect people from getting charged; they were never intended to ensure that bad government officials got charged. For ensuring that bad government officials actually get charged, we need some other mechanism.

      2. So I am agnostic, but I would lean towards unjustified unless I am made aware of facts and circ’s that would justify a no warning shoot in this case.

        In other words, the shooters say they might have felt scared if they didn’t start shooting. Totally justifiable under those “circs”

    2. Fuck you Reason. You ate my response.

      Once again. This film lies the problem with law enforcement today. The problem is that when you are confronted with someone who is armed, their action will beat your reaction every time. No amount of quick draw on your part is going to save you. You had better hope they are a bad shot.

      In combat the solution for that is to just shoot the guy immediately. Even that is not perfect, as evidenced by the mortality rate of being the point man. Law enforcement, however is not combat. We pay and train law enforcement because we expect better than that. In law enforcement you are supposed to give the guy the chance to drop the weapon before shooting him. Doing that entails risking your life. Taking that risk is why we pay cops. If we just wanted someone to go around and shoot people, we could get people to do that for free.

      1. Again you are wrong but that’s unsurprising when I’m dealing with people ignorant of the facts caselaw and constitutional law.

        Whether it’s a police shooter or nonpolice shooter there are some circumstances where you are required to give a warning and there are some circumstances when you are not.

        It’s clear from both statistics and study of films of police shooting that in the overwhelming majority of police shootings the cops get it right and use remarkable restraint and follow the legal requirements quite well.

        Your statements about the state of affairs in this country are laughably false in your belief that the cops routinely don’t take proper precautions before shooting.

        That aside in the instant case it appears at this point that they may not have been justified.

        There are facts and circ’s unknown to me that I would need to CONCLUDE unjustified but from what I know thus far, it’s reasonable to lean towards unjustified

        1. First,

          I teach RUF to police all of the time. I have forgotten more about this issue than you know. Second, I am talking about what it should be not necessarily what the law is. My point is how things should be so we can weed trigger happy cowards like you out of the profession.

          Whether it’s a police shooter or nonpolice shooter there are some circumstances where you are required to give a warning and there are some circumstances when you are not.

          Sure, and that case law has proven to be a disaster for the country as cops continually shoot people who turn out to be a threat. Even with the case law, anything short of pointing the weapon directly at the cop as far as I am concerned requires warning first.

          You don’t seem to understand, that person standing there’s life is more valuable than yours. We pay you to get shot. If you don’t like that, don’t take the job.

      2. We pay and train law enforcement because we expect better than that. In law enforcement you are supposed to give the guy the chance to drop the weapon before shooting him. Doing that entails risking your life. Taking that risk is why we pay cops.

        If you think you’re going to get a better police force by waving a bunch of money and a good pension around and puffing yourself up and making demands, you’re a fool. Even disregarding all the shooting and getting shot at part, police work seems like a shitty and boring job, dealing day in and day out with people who mostly hate you. The people who take that job already don’t have a lot of other choices. And if you start telling them that they are obligated to risk their lives for you, they are just going to tell you “f*ck you”.

        You wanna improve policing? You have to come up with something better than your bloviations.

        1. Again you are just astoundingly ignorant

          I love policework and if you think we deal with people mostly haters your shockingly ignorant

          I’ve posted statistics time and time again and I see it first hand at work all the time that most people overwhelmingly support and respect us.

          How many times what you were at work has somebody gone out of her way to tell you how much they respect what you do for a living?

          It happens more than I would ever have imagined before taking this job.

          Ignorant bigots like you surround yourself with like thinking people such as here and think that the rest of the world agrees with you.

          Year after year in the United States polling data proves the cops are among the top professions in terms of the respect we get and how people value our professionalism

          I really do love this job and a huge part of it is the feedback I get some good people.

          And when I can get even defence attorneys to give me praise for being a good cop and a good person that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy

          Cheers!

          1. If you actually read and understood my comment, you’d see that I wasn’t attacking police, I was attacking the attitude that people can just wave a bunch of money around and expect cops to die for them.

            I have no problem with police; I think our local police department is doing a good job. I think most police are hard working folks doing a difficult job. I respect them the same way I respect other, hard-working blue collar types.

            You, Dunphy, however, clearly have an attitude problem. It’s a shame that among the many good police officers, there are a bunch of jerks like you.

          2. Most don’t repect you, and as a military member I think most of you are jokes. You wouldn’t surive 5 minutes against a trained opponent. Why were our ROE in a fucking war zone more stringent then you in here in the States ? If you cops are such terrified pansies and can’t handle stress then quit !

            1. Yeah, I couldn’t even shoot Ali-baba for simply holding a gun. He had to point it at me first. They preferred it if he was already shooting at me…

          3. Amazing how much respect you get, when you are legally empowered to walk around with a gun at hand, molest and arrest people at will, plant false evidence, and give vehicle violations for almost any reason.
            Attilla the Hun and Vlad the Impaler, also got a lot overwhelming respect from the people around them.
            That does mean that they were respect-worthy, it means that they are dangerous and people know it.

            1. well said Gary T

        2. And if you start telling them that they are obligated to risk their lives for you, they are just going to tell you “f*ck you”.

          And we can build a special wing for them in prison.

          And yes, being a cop is a very touch job that entails dealing with the worst elements of society. It really is a calling and something that only a select few can do well.

          The problem is that our solution to every problem from about 40 years has been to “put more cops on the streets” as if every cop is fungible and the supply of people cut out to be good cops is limitless. This has caused us to hire a whole bunch of people who have no business being cops.

          You want to improve the quality of cops? Hire fewer of them and hold them to higher standards.

          As for my bloviating, if you don’t like it, go fuck yourself. I would be happy to hear your solutions other than stating the obvious that being a cop is hard. Well no shit it is hard. If it were easy there wouldn’t be a problem now would there?

          1. You want to improve the quality of cops? Hire fewer of them and hold them to higher standards.

            No, I don’t want to “improve the quality of cops”. Nor do I want to hire fewer of them. The number of police on the street in the US is comparable to other nations, and I don’t think it has increased greatly recently. And despite all the media hype, police brutality isn’t a big or growing problem in the US. And most folks are reasonably satisfied with their local police department.

            But although we don’t have an epidemic problem with police violence yet, there are legitimate concerns about militarization of police and excessive police powers that we should address.

            What can we do? A lot of police functions should be carried out (visibly) unarmed. There should be automatic state-level review of all police killings and bring charges against police without a grand jury. Immunity of police should be limited. Civil asset forfeitures should be eliminated. Some police functions should be privatized. Courts should expect body camera recordings as evidence and hold their absence against cops.

            None of that requires feeding into the myth of the superhero “good cop”. Cops are just regular blue collar workers, mostly decent and law-abiding, with some bad apples, and respond to normal incentives and management like anybody else.

        3. You wanna improve policing? You have to come up with something better than your bloviations [sic].

          OK, I have one. Let’s just fire the lot of them and be done with it.

      3. Taking that risk is why we pay cops. If we just wanted someone to go around and shoot people, we could get people to do that for free.

        I’ve said this time and time again. If all we’re gonna do is reflexively shoot people, wtf is the point of having police in the first place? You or I or Joe Blow can easily do that, too.

        Except for the fact that, of course, you and I and Joe Blow don’t as a general rule go around reflexively shooting people, and yet the cops do anyway.

    3. The problem is that law enforcement has decided that they are not going to take that risk anymore. The culture has become arrogant and totally dismissive of public safety or anyone’s safety other than their own. Further, cops are poorly trained and often totally unsuited for the job. The poor training and the horrible culture gives us cops who do their jobs in a state of total terror. These guys were scared shitless and walked in and shot the guy rather than risk telling him to drop the weapon first. That is really all there is to it.

      That to my mind makes them guilty of depraved indifference. Cops are supposed to be trained and are given an enormous amount of authority. This means they must be held to a higher standard of behavior. If I were the judge, we would start at 20 years for these guys and go up or down depending on whatever mitigation they had.

      The rule has to be this way or you end up with what we have now; cops saying “when in doubt shoot because the worst thing that can happen is you lose your job”. The rule has to be “do your duty and make sure the guy is a threat or go to a pound you in the as general population prison for a decade or two”. Without the treat of prison you wind up giving every cop a free shoot in his career.

      1. the treat of prison

        John, I swear it must be subconscious for you. Awesome.

        1. It is. It is especially true when I am annoyed, which Dunphy has done.

          There are few people I have more disdain for than cowards. He would rather have innocent people die than risk his sorry ass to make sure he has the right person.

          1. Dumphy. Patently ignored by The Bandit since 2009.

          2. Rubbish as I said in 20 years I haven’t had a single use of force complaint would unsustained complaint

            You are too stupid to understand the difference between my commenting on legal issues versus preferred conduct

            I hold myself to a much higher standard than the law but if I am commenting on whether shooting is justified it based on the law not my personal moral code.

            I can reflect on my citations for valour my injuries sustained in going way beyond the call of duty to save lives.

            I have no problem tooting my own horn if it’s in response to your ignorant and bigoted posts when you have no knowledge of my heroic career.

            You think that because I say officer X is justified in shooting that is the same thing is saying I would have shot a guy in that circumstance.

            You are drawing illogical bigoted conclusions but again that’s typical of bigots.

            I’ve carried a taser over a dozen years and never once shot it at anybody which puts me in a tiny elite percentage in terms of restraint

            Continue to Wallow in ignorance and I’ll continue to protect cowardly sods like you, those eager to criticise others but unwilling to put themselves online

            1. For those keeping score at home, at this point the cowardly dunphy has made two comments without answering my simple yes/no question!

            2. I don’t know what to tell you. But if you think you should shoot someone instead of risking giving them a chance to put their weapon down and making sure they really have a weapon, then you are a fucking coward.

              If you don’t and have taken that risk, then stop defending people who are cowards and thus associating yourself with them.

            3. I’ve carried a taser over a dozen years and never once shot it at anybody which puts me in a tiny elite percentage in terms of restraint

              Just so you’re aware, it puts you in an elite percentage of nothing with regard to the general population.

              those eager to criticise others but unwilling to put themselves online

              About as priceless as John’s ‘treat of prison’ slip. You come online and pick a fight with Reason forumites as a form of catharsis from your career as a hero?

              You criticize people as cowards for not deliberately having a job of picking fights?

              I think the police state in this country could do with fewer like you. The best you could do is take some of your buddies with you when you leave.

            4. You can always spot a true hero by how they relentlessly inform you of what a hero they are.

              1. Bwahahahahaha

          3. I’m pretty sure that isn’t the real Dunphy.

      2. Hi John
        I have been thinking about this subject for a while now and I think the problem is not so much that the cop is there to risk their lives for us on a daily basis but a major fault in their tactics. Watching this video and others I have not seen policing I have seen active encounters. What I mean is they are actively engaging people by charging at them as if they were on the battle field and everyone needs to be oppressed. They need to return to the tactics of not putting themselves in the line of fire and positioning themselves such that they can’t be shot while giving the person a chance to stand down. instead they are using confrontational tactics that requires a response by either party. this is the problem with no knock raids and with the MRAP vehicles they are using it requires a face to face response. This attitude needs to change this is essentially what occurred at Waco when it need not of happend, only now all encounters are treated this way.. Note this is separate from the lone cop on the beat who suddenly encounters an idiot on the street who is trying to take his gun or actively threatening him then all bets are off. second note I think the public is also at fault here for getting tired of criminals and demanding the the police do something more proactive and shootings like this become the result. we need to educate everyone

      3. Without the treat of prison you wind up giving every cop a free shoot in his career.

        Actually, with ‘free shot’ v. ‘loss of police work/career’ being the tradeoff, I’m kinda surprised the streets don’t run red.

  15. So why aren’t all the people getting outraged because Darren Wilson had the temerity to defend himself making an issue of this killing of an unarmed black man? (Oh, never mind. I just remembered: toy guns are just as bad as real guns, and opposition to guns (except those wielded by agents of the state) trumps opposition to racism every day of the week.)

  16. Most importantly, those heroes went home to their families safely that night. /bootlicker

  17. When this story first broke, many wondered whether mitigating factors would emerge to explain, if not justify, the reaction of law enforcement officers. To my eyes at least, the surveillance video confirms the worst case scenario: The cops killed this man for almost no reason whatsoever.

    Silly rabbit. They killed him for the only reason that matters. He scared the shit out of them.

    OFFICER SAFETY.

  18. Let’s also not forget that Angela Williams, a 37 year-old mother shopping with her daughter, died as a result of these officer’s actions, as well.

  19. I must say it’s a refreshing change from your previous defense of cops murdering people without warning.

    I think this is a new and different dunphy shitbag, for what that’s worth.

    1. Yeah, this “dunphy” seems like a troll playing off the old one. Probably another one of Tulpa’s sockpuppets. It’s his “defend everything the cops do while trying to dance around it” schtick.

      1. What is striking here is that this shoot is so bad even he can’t defend it. The best he can say is “well it wasn’t a crime”, because apparently no shooting by a cop could ever be a crime in Dunphy’s view.

        1. Again. You lie
          It’s just staggering how much people Lie and don’t understand basic facts.

          You lie.
          I did not say it was not a crime

          I said the grand jury did not believe it was a crime

          I have no opinion on whether it was a crime or not since I don’t know enough facts and I don’t know the states legal codes.

          I’m not defending the shooting because the facts and circumstances known to me don’t support that conclusion.

          Unlike the anti police bigots who show in almost every post a complete lack of understanding of how use of force law even works I judge all shootings Whether police or nonpolice based upon the available evidence and case law not bigotry and emotion which is what comprises the majority of posts here about police use of force.

          There are many critics of police force who at least understand basic case law such as Radley Balko. Maybe one day there will be some posters here who at least understand Case law and use of force law and can comment on facts. I will continue to speak truth to power and to try to educate the bigots and the ignorant

          It’s a fair cop, mate

          1. I am not a police bigot. You just think that because I won’t defend the indefensible. I believe my lying eyes here.

            1. We know the guy didn’t have a gun.

            2. We can see on the video he never pointed it at the cops

            3. We can see on the video the cops made no effort to let the guy put what he had down or ensure that what he had really was a gun.

            4. The cops shot him almost immediately upon seeing him.

            It doesn’t matter what you think of cops. That is manslaughter by any reasonable definition.

          2. Maybe one day there will be some posters here who at least understand Case law and use of force law and can comment on facts.

            The rules of engagement are more stringent for military personnel and the punishment for misconduct are worse.

            And that’s all you really have to say or know.

          3. And you conveniently gloss over the point that the prosecutor has virtually total control of the grand jury process, and if he didn’t want the cops indicted they would not be indicted, period. The grand jury system has become a sick joke on the public where a prosecutor can say “I put it before the grand jury, but they didn’t indict. Oh well, I tried.” Thus he does what all government officials, and law enforcement in particular, does best and avoid responsibility for his actions, just as he helped these cops avoid responsibility for their actions.

          4. And you conveniently gloss over the point that the prosecutor has virtually total control of the grand jury process, and if he didn’t want the cops indicted they would not be indicted, period. The grand jury system has become a sick joke on the public where a prosecutor can say “I put it before the grand jury, but they didn’t indict. Oh well, I tried.” Thus he does what all government officials, and law enforcement in particular, does best and avoid responsibility for his actions, just as he helped these cops avoid responsibility for their actions.

          5. Maybe one day there will be some posters here who at least understand Case law and use of force law and can comment on facts.

            Maybe one day you’ll stop pretending that you have greater occupational knowledge of case law and UOF law than actual attorneys.

            I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that day to come, though.

  20. Well those guys weren’t nearly as helpful as this guy.

    1. He has a point, though; if you don’t get pulled over by a cop, your likelihood of being raped by a cop goes way down.

  21. Anybody else remember that reason post showing that being a cop isn’t even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs?

    1. Seen that other places than Reason. It isn’t even close, IIRC.

      1. with consideration that a small percentage of police officers who are shot end up dying due to vests etc. Like in 2012 in NYC – 13 cops shot, none killed, there are tons of jobs that are way more dangerous.

        Even working patrol in a high crime district at night one has a pretty small chance of dying in any given year
        In the whole country is usually between 150 and 200 officers total killed by all causes in line of duty see http://www.odmp.org

        Thank God we have vests and good officer safety etc. And not only do we rarely suffer death we also very rarely dole it out.

        As in the example I gave in that given year in New York City out of 35,000 cops there were only 30 people total shot by police in the city of well over 8 million.

        30 people shot by police and 13 police shot in the line of duty both numbers are impressively low for NYC

        my agency has a substantially higher rate of police shooting as well as officers who get shot in the line of duty unfortunately.

        Unlike reasonoids we deal with violence frequently.

        I’ve been shot at, had somebody try to stab me, been kicked in the head,

        I’ve had two buddies killed land over a dozen friends seriously injured line of duty.

        The average reasonoids will never have to deal with a coworker being shot or stabbed as I have done

        He will never have somebody try to kill him. He will probably never have to defend himself from felony assault.

        We deal with this stuff almost always heroically nobly and damn proud to serve and protect

        1. That is what you get paid to do. Killing a cop in the line of duty is either death or life without parole in every state. Very few people are going to try and sign up for that wrap. The biggest thing you have protecting your safety is your uniform and badge. If the person wants to kill you, the gun isn’t likely to do you any good unless the guy is a bad shot.

        2. We deal with this stuff almost always heroically nobly and damn proud to serve and protect

          You’re a well-paid, low-skilled blue collar worker, like a construction worker, lumberjack, or sanitation worker. The rest of society is glad you’re doing your job, but lose the attitude and the delusions of grandeur: your job is no more “noble” or “heroic” than a lot of other dirty, shitty jobs. And it is certainly no more dangerous.

          1. I had the same sophomoric ideas when I was in know nothing college student

            Fortunately the vast majority of the public recognises the truth and has great respect for our noble career

            Pulling people from a burning building risking my life when others wouldn’t is heroic

            Chasing a murderer down on foot and placed into custody before he can kill the witness he promises to kill is heroic

            I know it kills the do nothing critic that yes there still are heroes in the society and yes we are doing this stuff day in and day out while you do the work of the critic knowing the price of everything from the sidelines and wishing you were actually an effective helri agent for positive change like we are

            The idea that we are low skilled is laughable

            Good cops have such a diverse and rare group of skills

            I challenge anybody to make hundreds of arrests in over 20 years and not get a single complaint

            Have the skills to know how to get good confessions good interviews and have the kind of intense and horizontal street knowledge that you get from being a good beat cop

            It really is such a rewarding career and I feel badly for people who never find their true calling and like most men live lives of quiet desperation

            Sure the job can be frustrating at times but on the whole it’s so immensely rewarding and interesting and it provides opportunities for true heroes to let their heroics out. Many potential heroes another job just never get a chance to do the kind of good we get to do.

            1. OMG you think you’re a hero. What a fucking joke.

              1. Sure and of course I have had many members of the public say the same and even decide to issue me a reward for valour

                Among the remarkable and life changing aspects in this job is having some person you’ve never met hug you, cry and thank you for being a hero is one that I am sure you reason posters will never have the pleasure of experiencing

                More rewarding than receiving a medal for Valour is having a person hug cry and thank you for being a hero

                There are a few jobs where that can happen and it’s one of the things that makes policework so wonderful

                1. And here I thought police work was so wonderful because you can do whatever you want, and no one can stop you. I mean, what are they going to do, call the cops?

                  With the bonus part being that if someone does interfere with you or refuse to do as they are told, you get to beat the living shit out of them and then throw them head first into a cage!

            2. And all those people you arrested for victimless crimes? Some fucking hero you are.

            3. You don’t get paid for being a hero, nor do you get paid for your job satisfaction. As police, you have a lot of power, which is why you need to do your job by the book and not play hero or prosecutor.

              If you worked for a private security firm, you’d get fired with your kind of attitude because you’re a risk and a lawsuit waiting to happen. It’s only because government immunity shields you that you can get away with your “sophomoric” behavior.

              Fortunately, most police officers aren’t like you. And hopefully, with more accountability, we can weed out bad apples like you. Maybe if we privatize more police and security forces, it will dawn on people like you that you work for the local community and need to abide by our rules.

              1. Fortunately, most police officers aren’t like you.

                What makes you think that? In my experience most cops are just like him. They’re dishonest, full of themselves, and like children they are quick to violence when they don’t immediately get their way.

                1. I think the quality of your police force depends on where you live and your local government. Where I live, there is little violent crime, no police brutality, and cops come when you call them and are polite and helpful in my experience.

                  1. I think the quality of your police force depends on where you live and your local government. Where I live, there is little violent crime, no police brutality, and cops come when you call them and are polite and helpful in my experience.

                    This I can agree with. There are parts of the country where they conduct themselves nobly, adequately, and bumbling-but-mostly-harmless (as well as malevolently). Just like about any other profession.

                    There are noble, adequate, and benign politicians, but I wouldn’t call politics a noble profession. Nor would I call Gabby Giffords, Jim Brady, nor any one of the Kennedys a hero.

        3. There is nothing noble about zealously enforcing unjust laws while mostly ignoring crimes with actual victims.

          Nothing noble at all.

  22. I’m all for disarming the police.

    1. I would be game for that. Disarm all police with the exception of SWAT teams. Then have absolutely draconian penalties for pulling a weapon on a cop. Let it be known that cops are not armed and therefore pulling a weapon on one buys you a life sentence. Criminals would respond to that incentive structure very quickly and cops would be safer as a result. And the rest of us would be much safer as we no longer were under the threat of being shot by some trigger happy panicked cop.

      1. This would be great with one modification, the draconian penalties apply only if
        a) the cop is wearing a uniform, and I recommend something along Greek lines.

        b) the cop must be serving a warrant or on a public right of way

        c) the cop must be unarmed.

        Otherwise I fear they would continue to behave unlawfully, just with less killin

        1. Yes. But I think all cops should be in uniform at all times. No more under cover bullshit. Put them in uniforms and put the public on notice that assaulting or harming one is going to be dealt with very harshly.

          1. But I think all cops should be in uniform at all times.

            And the uniform must have silly pom-poms – to drive away the people who can’t handle a small degree of public humiliation.

            1. And the uniform must have silly pom-poms – to drive away the people who can’t handle a small degree of public humiliation.

              I’m ok with this especially if they’re also all hot and female.

          2. The purpose of going undercover is to catch people committing victimless crimes.

            Get rid of victimless crime laws, and there would be no need to go undercover.

        1. In the UK a substantial amount of cops are armed especially in Northern Ireland but even in England last I checked about 20% of the force is routinely armed.

          ‘Armed police’ are also available in many depts for hot calls, many cops have guns in trunk to deploy with permission, etc.

          If I was a cop in England I would have no problem being generally or mostly unarmed just as they are.

          For what it’s worth UK cops have a pretty healthy use of force rate. In my opinion and from what I’ve seen Ian’s heard (from uk residents as well as UK cops) the average UK cop much like the average United States cop isan honourable man doing an honourable profession quite well.

          I’ve never done a ride along in England but I’ve done a couple in Canada and it’s really interesting to see how To do it in other jurisdictions.

            1. This was meant as a reply to The artist known as Dunphy’s statement that “UK cops have a pretty healthy use of force rate.” (Yes, I know: technically a single incident doesn’t much affect the *rate* of use of force, but still.)

  23. The police maintained that Crawford had refused orders to drop the weapon; the video footage proves definitively that that was not the case?the cops shot the man almost immediately after encountering him.

    Uhh, no they didn’t. They waited until he dropped the weapon, then they shot him.

    1. Exactly – he dropped the useless toy and ran when he saw people with real guns.

  24. I too would have absolved the police. Waving any gun around in a public place is an invitation to get killed. As others have suggested I would sentence the officer to an hour at the shooting range per week for the next 6 months.

    1. The grand jury didn’t absolve jack shit and Jack has left town

      what they did was they did not determine that there was sufficient evidence to charge a crime

      Just as a jury does not absolve A defendant just because they find him not guilty.

      This is the case I’ll be watching closely. I of course hope that the shooting turns out justified but at this point its not looking good

      1. Yes, fuck the grand jury. Have a preliminary hearing and let the judge refer him to trial. But you have to do that in public and the DA would have to answer for the case he put on. A grand jury is done in secret.

        What appears to have happened here is the DA put on a sham case before the grand jury to try and make the issue go away and protect the cops.

        For the life of me I can’t understand how you defend this stuff. Don’t you understand that every time one of these shootings results in nothing but a big bill for taxpayers, the cops’ jobs just gets harder and the public’s contempt for them that much greater?

        I laugh at how you ignorantly assume I am some cop hating libertarian. There is not a bigger law and order person out there than me. There are still people in prison right now because I helped put them there. Yet, I cannot defend this shit anymore and it sickens me.

        When you have lost people like me, you have lost the country. If a former prosecutor, veteran conservative Republican like me thinks that the cops in this country are out of control and something needs to be done, you have no support left within the public beyond the ignorant and the people who get a paycheck for supporting you. Good luck with that going forward.

        1. The same moronic argument all the time from you bigoted idiots – it must’ve been a sham trial and the DA didn’t present his best case and didn’t want an indictment

          It’s almost truther like in its wide-eyed ignorance

          I know you hate that we have a system that requires actual evidence to put somebody on trial and you love to see every cop shooting result in a trial

          I’m glad to live under a a system that doesn an excellent job in holding police accountable for unjustified force while protecting them from the slings and arrows of the small minority of bigots like you who like to see them Strung up every time they use of force

          Thank god the public respects us and doesn’t subject us to such an unfair system that people like you would propose.

          And thank God we don’t have such a system because if we did we wouldn’t have the kind of good people get into LE because no good person would want to work under such a system

          1. I can tell it was a sham case because I can watch the video. Why do you assume it wasn’t?

          2. Goddamn epi, you’re good at this.

            1. Okay, that’s funny.

      2. Yet another comment by the cowardly dunphy while evading the fundamental test of his character. It’s a simple yes/no question, why won’t you answer it?

        Is it because the answer is “No”, and you lack the balls and/or honor to say so?

        1. Post the question instead of links and I decided I wanna answer it.

          I’m not here to respond to the request of bigots I’m here speak truth to power but I might decide to do so

          1. I’m here speak truth to power

            Wat

          2. you’re not even fucking coherent you knob.

          3. I’m not here to respond to the request of bigots I’m here speak truth to power

            You are the “power”, you goddamn idiot.

      3. Turns out justified?

        A man was carrying a toy gun IN A STORE THAT SELLS GUNS.

        Seeing a person walking around with a gun IN A STORE THAT SELLS GUNS is to be expected. Even the stupidest cop should know that.

        The ONLY reason for those cops to have been as agitated as they were is if they’d been responding to a ‘shots fired’ incident.

        There is no possible justification for this shooting.

    2. Unfortunately, nobody got to sentence the officer to anything because the case never went to trial.

      I don’t know whether the officer was guilty or not guilty, but I think this case should have gone to trial. If a jury found him not guilty, I accept their judgment. If a grand jury decides not to charge him, that’s wrong.

      1. If there is not sufficient probable cause then a grand jury should not Indict. That’s true of all cop suspects just as it is true of noncop Suspects. Sadly many cop Cases just like some non cop Cases end up getting overly political and they will get charged not because of evidence but because of public outcry

        That makes me a sad panda

        1. … and it is well known that sad pandas lack the ability to answer yes/no questions, amirite?

          1. Pose the question not a link

            I find it laughable that some cowardly bigot would call me a coward when I demonstrate courage day to day while you guys sit behind a keyboard and whine

            In generally speaking silly psychological ploys like this don’t work

            Oh no you called me a coward so I’ll jump to your beck and call

            Spare me the penny psychology, bigot

            1. The link is to his comment above idiot.

              Cowardly AND stupid.

              1. Seriously brah, that’s a pretty weak psychological ploy

                Oh my god some cowardly bigot accuses me of being a coward behind the protection of his mum’s keyboard

                That’s going to incentivise me to jump right away and answer your question and do your bidding

            2. Here’s the question, answer it.

              if I showed up at my neighbor’s house with a gun drawn in the middle of the night, and shot him as soon as he opened the door because he had a gun in his hand, does my neighbor have it coming?

              1. How about this, I’m awakened at 5am by a person dressed in black coming through my bedroom window, can I shoot said person?

            3. I find it laughable that some cowardly bigot would call me a coward when I demonstrate courage day to day while you guys sit behind a keyboard and whine

              Yeah, it takes real courage to drag your donut-fattened ass to roll call every morning before you pour yourself into a cruiser and write traffic tickets for a shift.

              You’re a goddamn hero.

        2. Answer tarran’s question, you cowardly fuck!

          1. You are very cute when you wine like a petulant little fuck

            Smooches!

              1. Pose the question and I’ll decide if I want to

                Not links.

                Just pose the question

                1. So I demand you answer the following question: if I showed up at my neighbor’s house with a gun drawn in the middle of the night, and shot him as soon as he opened the door because he had a gun in his hand, does my neighbor have it coming?

                  1. I know you think that’s analogous situation but is not an analogous situation

                    It’s another typical ploywhere are you will present some completely non-analogous situation as if it is analogous to try to improve some point that you haven’t at all proved

                    It wouldn’t work in a court of law it wouldn’t work in John Houseman’s classroom and it doesn’t work here

                    I’ve had countless people answerthe door to me in uniform with the holstered gun and it will never present a problem

                    Anyone who sees the police are knocking at the door and chooses to answer the door with a gun in his hand and has nobody but himself to blame if he get shot

                    It was a truism when I said it and it’s still a truism

                    No normal person with any amount of common sense which is most people answers the door to a cops knock with a gun held in his hand

                    Figure 20 years of policework I must have knocked on conservatively about 10,000 doors

                    And never has somebody come to the door with a gun in their hand nor have any of my partners ever recounted such an incident nor have I ever read a police report where that occurred

                    1. lol’d

                      “A” for effort.

                    2. No normal person with any amount of common sense which is most people answers the door to a cops knock with a gun held in his hand

                      Um, how exactly do plainclothes cops in the middle of the night who don’t announce themselves as police knock? Does the door tremble with respect, or something? ‘Cause otherswise it is precisely and exactly like tarran’s scenario.

                    3. The police were in plain clothes Dunphy.

                      They admitted it. They admitted that all they did was knock before firing. They weren’t wearing a uniform. They didn’t shout “Police”. IIRC they didn’t even have their badges prominently displayed. They were disguising being cops!

                      Therefore it *is* analogous. If I, a stranger in civilian clothes, knock on a door with a gun drawn and the homeowner answers the door with his gun drawn, does he have it coming if I shoot him?

                      So you want to take another shot at it, tough guy? You want to man up? Or are you going to run away like the pussy I think you are.

                    4. Ladies and gentlemen, if you are downhearted at reading the cowardly dunphy’s thuggish commentary, and his craven refusal to give a straight answer to a simple question, I encourage you to click on the following link. It points to the story of a knight of King Arthur’s Round Table, one whose bravery and heroic exploits most closely match those of Dunphy.

                      The song at the end is, I think the most appropriate send off I can think of to dunphy, heroic defender of freedom, admitted violator of HIPPA and the 4th amendment, former drug snitch who had the courage to ‘like’ LEAP on facebook and implacable enemy of the shift key.

                    5. And there you have it boys and girls.

                      Evasion and desertion.

                      My hero.

                      *bats eyes*

                2. If that’s the case, Dunphy, why did the cops have their guns drawn when they knocked on the door?

                  The reason why you are issued a weapon, you imbecille, is so that you can defend yourself if you are attacked.

                  Teh reason why I can have a weapon in my home, you loser, is so that *I* can defend myself if *I* am attacked.

                  The murderer-cops were in plain clothes brandishing weapons when they knocked on the door. Their rationale for brandishing their guns? There was a dangerous murderer in the area.

                  Teh police don’t have a special right to defend themselves that little people like me don’t. If the guy having a gun in his hand as he answered his own door in the dead of night was a menacing figure warranting an act of self-defense, then the cops who knocked on the door were equally menacing, in fact mroe menacing because they hadn’t been invited upon the property they happened to have entered!!!!!

                  If you were right, then had the homeowner gunned them down immediately upon openign the door, then it wouldn’t have been murder but self defense.

                  So I demand you answer the following question: if I showed up at my neighbor’s house with a gun drawn in the middle of the night, and shot him as soon as he opened the door because he had a gun in his hand, does my neighbor have it coming?

                  It’s a simple yes no question. And if you refuse to answer, we will know that you really think the answer is “No” and that you don’t want to admit it because you want to concea…

                  1. What’s sad is I remember this thread.

                    What’s sadder is that Dunphy still doesn’t get it.

                    1. What’s sadder is that Dunphy still doesn’t get it.

                      He absolutely knows that no peasant would get away with unloading on a neighbor who answered the door with a gun in their hand.

                      So he absolutely knows that it’s wrong that plainclothes cops get away with doing the exact same thing, and he likes it that way.

                      Because that’s what it is to be a cop. You routinely do things that you know to be wrong, and you smile as you get away with it.

                  2. You really are this stupid I get it

                    Again in over 10,000 times I’ve knocked on the door in uniform I’ve never had a person come to the door with the gun in the hand

                    It’s only in the funhouse mirror world of you are kind of idiocy that you cant see how stupid that is

                    All you pedantic crap aside I’ve carried a firearm for over 20 years on duty and not only have I never made a mistake regarding how I use one but I’m entrusted with teaching both cops and noncops how to use them

                    The Idea that a person with my training and experience as both a cop and a firearm instructor and that includes instruction to scores of non-cops could be schooled by an ignoramus like you that think it’s totally appropriate to answer the knock of a police officer with the gun in your hand is just galactically stupid

                    1. 10000 times

                      And you’ve always seen both hands when they answer the door.

                      ok buddy

                    2. Obviously it’s possible that somebody may have been holding a gun that I didn’t see.

                      The point is that any normal person and for that matter every person I’ve ever encountered has refrained from answering the door with a gun
                      VISIBLE in their hand

                      Correct on that correction

                      Outside the rarefied climate of reason galactic stupidity when it comes to police use of force I have found that most people come to reasonable conclusions about police use of force

                      If you do your job correctly as I have done you may never get a use of force complaint

                      Again you’re ex post facto verbal judo is as important as how you use the force hello

                      My point is that I have used some pretty hefty uses of force In full view of witnesses on many occasions and short of having videotape of the incident it’s great protection.

                      In other words I cant think of a single case where i used force and the force was witnessed and the witness didn’t end up being a pro police witness as to the force.

                      Again it’s part of why the job is so rewarding

                      I’ve just seen in the overwhelming number of cases that the public support us when we do the right thing and it’s just incredibly comforting

                      I would of course love to be allowed to wear a body Camera since I’d prefer a unobjective witness to be available in all cases and one who has perfect memory like a body Camera does

                    3. Dunphy when I frist read you initial post I expected to see a “derp” or “/sarc” tag at the end.

                      You would have made a good Nazi yoi (self proclaimed) noble and heroic defender of the state.

                      In my lifetime of the sutdy of human nature I find that most people who proclaim themselves to be something usually are the opposite.

                    4. I thought cops were supposed to have an eye for details.

                      You, Dunphy the Dipshit, are either purposely avoiding the key detail in the question Tarran posed to you, or you’re really insufferably stupid.

                      The scenario was that those cops that knocked on the guy’s door in the middle of the night were NOT in uniform and did not announce that they were cops, and yet you answer his question with “Again in over 10,000 times I’ve knocked on the door in uniform I’ve never had a person come to the door with the gun in the hand,” as if your answer is somehow relevant.

                      Answer the question, dumbass.

        3. I think the evidence in this case is clear and sufficient for a jury trial. I don’t think the police acted out of racism or malice, but there is a good case to be made that they acted negligently.

          Generally speaking, whenever someone kills someone else who turned out not to have been an actual threat, I think there should always be a jury trial.

  25. I’m here speak truth to power

    Trollolol.

  26. ok, I don’t understand how anyone could see this and not laugh out loud at the suggestion the cops won’t stand trial for murder.

    1. Is it your opinion that the grand jury did not see this video?

    2. Maybe they feared retribution from the cops.

      1. This is another one of my favourites

        I remember when I first presented all the polls that prove how much the public loves and respects cops

        ‘Derp derp the pollees were afraid to answer any other way lest the cops pummel them’

        because people routinely fear that if the answer A Gallup poll the wrong way cops beat them up

        1. Who said anything about getting beat up? Not that I would be surprised if some cops jumped someone they didn’t like, beat the shit out of them, and then charged them with assault on a cop. It’s not like it would be the first time.

          I was thinking more like going out and finding your car has been towed, or being followed until you do something worthy of a ticket, or being ignored when you call for help.

        2. I don’t give a shit about polls. And what do anonymous polls have to do with people sitting in a jury box fearing retribution from the cops? I mean, an average person sitting in that box being stared down by uniformed officers in the audience knows that something bad will happen to them if they don’t vote to acquit.

          1. There is no audience in a grand jury proceeding. You libertarians need to get a brain.

            1. nor do grand juries vote to acquit (that’s what the juries in a criminal trial do).

              Perhaps you might want to take your own advice?

              I suggest you start reading about the police presence at the trial of the cops who murdered Kelly Thomas.

        3. Police in general don’t scare me, but you do. Which city/town are you in, again?

          1. He’s stinking up some down in Washington state.

  27. Is it just me, or does it look like he dropped the gun before ducking behind the shelf?

    1. I posted the same thought above. I watched it like 20 times. You hear the cop yelling “down, put the gun down” a split second before the shots. In that split second, it looked to he like he was bending over trying to comply with the request as he was shot.

      1. He dropped something on the ground before even that, I think. It seems like his first act is to duck behind the shelf. At that point there is something lying on the ground that looks like it could be the gun. Then he comes back around into the aisle and is apparently shot. It looks to me like he may not have even had the gun in hand when the police officer entered the aisle, let alone took the shot, and that he dropped it a good second or two before.

        1. Nevermind the fact that he was effectively the only person in the store for at least 10 minutes before some assholes decided “hey guys lets go kill a nigger!”

          1. You can like it or not and you probably won’t like it but a substantial fact in the police’s favour is that there was at least 1911 call with the reporter claiming that he had pointed his gun at people inside the store

            Under basic use of forced doctrine that is going to be a substantial factor in an elevated apprehension by the police officers upon arrival

            And again as to justification it is 100% irrelevant as to whether the claim was true. Aguilar Spinelli applies of course but in such circumstances courts have ruled is reasonable for the police to rely on such claims, while of course being obligated to meet pre-arrival information with what is observed upon arrival

            Any good experienced street Cops recognise that information given to 911 operators is not always correct to put it mildly

  28. note to everyone:

    dress as cops for halloween
    go to dunphy’s house
    blast him in the face when he opens door unarmed

  29. Just following procedure?

    Everyone should know, the Nazis never denied anyone full procedural due process of law.

    Procedure without substance, doesn’t count for much.

    1. Ah yes this moronic response yet another classic one from the Bigots

      Nazis cops deep derp

      1. You know who else was an artist?

  30. I said this from day one. This PUNK THUG WITH A BADGE needs to be immediately fired, indicted and prosecuted to the fullest. He should receive Capital punishment as he did this with gross malice and intent.

  31. So, does anyone know if the grand jury saw the video? Maybe I missed it, but I can’t find mention of whether they did or not.

    Also, was the grand jury room packed with cops, glaring at the jury and taking photos of them while they heard the case?

    1. Remember the stories about grand jury composition from a month or two ago? The actual jury might have been packed with cops.

  32. Dunphy, your level of self-deception and level of reliance on your “years on the job” and “experience and training” is truly pathetic. You clearly think you are right because you’re a cop.
    You think you’re a good cop because people are too scared of police to assert their rights when you’re there.
    You think authority-worshipers and cop-suckers and those who are trying to get in the good graces of the local force monopoly, that emasculatingly fawn over you, are informed or aware enough to have an opinion worth a damn.
    You’re a coward who thinks in terms of training and protocol, not rights and respect for life or humanity.
    You’re scum.

    You keep calling us idiots, I guess it’s because you think that just because you only get called out here, and IRL everyone is too stupid, scared or subservient to echo what we say – that we must be wrong and “stupid”. You’re level of willful self deceit with tarran’s question is truly horrifying.

  33. Goddamn. Dunphy is back.

    He chose this thread to come debate about the justifiability of various shootings? Not. Smart.

    Sure seems to be a lot of acrimony from him. Lots of ad hominem attacks. Surely that is not a sign of defensiveness?

    1. Speaking of which, you are not doing yourself or your colleagues any favors. These guys shot a guy down in cold blood. Panic fire, just like the cop that shot the grandma because she reached for a baby.

      Any attempt to defend what they did just confirms what we already know anyway.

    2. I think we can presume that this is not the real Dunphy. I’m only a semi-regular in the comments with an emphasis on the semi, but as I recall Dunphy was a good deal brighter and didn’t make so many typos.

  34. Pellet rifles are sold in bright colored packages and secured w/ tie wraps to prevent theft. Not sure how this guy got the pellet rifle out of the packaging and why he would think that he wouldn’t draw attention by carrying it around. I think the 911 caller prejudiced the police with his description. Unless he threatened off camera, I never saw him point the gun. He was not smart for waving the gun, but it wasn’t threatening unless it was a real gun and loaded. Another question. Toy guns are required to have bright orange caps around the muzzle for safety. So why aren’t pellet guns marked as well? I think the combo of the 911 descriptions & poor decisions of the young man lead police to assume the worst. The police wasted no time in shooting him and didn’t give him a chance to “give up”. May be how they’re trained. I think it’s lost on police that the peeps instinctive reaction to having a gun pointed at them is to turn/run. Or when you have knees in your back and head and you arm’s wrenched to cuff that perhaps its pain and not from “resisting arrest”. We have militarized tactics for handling situations that do not require them. Understand the police want to survive, but they need to diffuse situations and keep the peace rather than use urban warfare tactics for every situation.

    1. Pellet rifles are sold in bright colored packages and secured w/ tie wraps to prevent theft.

      It’s Walmart. The kid before him took it out of the package, walked out of the store with it, and then returned it with his receipt for a refund/store credit.

      Toy guns are required to have bright orange caps around the muzzle for safety. So why aren’t pellet guns marked as well?

      Dude, trigger warnings!

      Exactly how (non) lethal does a ‘firearm’ get before you don’t put the orange tip on it?

      I know every pneumatic nailer and most of the powder-based nailers at my local hardware store don’t have orange tips. They’re simultaneously safer and more lethal than the ‘weapon’ he was carrying and they still shouldn’t be waived around whimsically.

    2. I think the 911 caller prejudiced the police with his description.

      Bingo. Mr. Dummy Fatman Attention-Whore Dimwitbag was as proud as can be as he explained his decision to the press to call the cops on the madman running about the Walmart pointing his assault rifle hither and yon at the children and folks.

  35. Talk about narrative change, first they were claiming he was shot after he dropped it, but that ain’t true. Then you claim he wasn’t pointing it at anyone, but the video shows him walking around the store pointing it at all sorts of things and there is more than a few seconds of him not in the video. One would think you haven’t even watched the video. In any event the police were coming to a report of a man with a rifle in a store. Talk about Darwin Award Winner.

    1. So, after watching the video, do you think the police were justified?

    2. Talk about narrative change, first they were claiming he was shot after he dropped it, but that ain’t true.

      I’ll take 10,000 narrative changes by Reason over one unchanging death sentence for holding a pellet gun alone in the back of a Walmart any day of the week.

  36. Huffington Post? You might as well have gone to the Enquirer to get your news. As for the video, did you not see how he slunk around the store waving what looked like a real gun? Did you miss the part where he lunged at an armed Swat officer before getting shot? Are we supposed to be so paranoid about white injustice against blacks that we ignore our own eyes? That’s unreasonable.

    1. If you watched that video and can determine that the police gave that fellow enough time to lower his weapon before killing him, not only is your beard full of dung but so is your goddamn skull.

  37. my classmate’s mother makes $73 hourly on the computer . She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her payment was $15449 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    over here ====== http://WWW.JOBSFISH.COM

  38. No hesitation to kill this man. No attempt to allow surrender. No justice from the system. These cops/DA/SA/ASA need to be handled more severely than Sean Groubert for their incompetence, negligence, and lack repentance. Our system has yet another opportunity to get it right and fails.

  39. Yes, always with no reason. Is libertarianism now synonymous with knee-jerk anti-police attitude? It has become a trend.

    BTW, I’m not judging the merits of the shooting based on this video alone, just this trend of lately. Notice how the headline concludes “for no reason”, which I find awkward coming from a publication named “Reason”.

    1. Suck your own asshole, doofus. To anyone with half a brain it is clear this dude was infinitely stupid but in no way needed to be killed in the split-second the cops gave him to lower the toy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.