Support NeoGAF

[Spring-Loaded]

I am using If statements because I am not foolish enough to think I know what is going on here. I do not have all the evidence. I was not there. I do not trust the conflicting newspaper articles. I am reserving judgment like a model citizen. I am analyzing the legal implications of the asserted facts of both sides. If the man was pointing the gun at people, aggravated assault, cops called. If the man picked up the gun, move around the store with it, and treated it as his own, then a reasonable person could conclude a larceny was afoot, and police calling was justified.

Do I know these facts to be true? Nope.

Since you're trying to be perfectly impartial here, consider what can't be put behind an "if" statement. The guy had a toy gun he was planning on buying from Wal-Mart. Someone called the cops on him in an open carry state. They provided the police with personal accounts that you've said can't be taken at face value. The cops killed him despite the gun not being real and no actual danger existing. Even if he was "waving it around" and carrying it like a toy rather than a loaded weapon, that does not justify lethal force. As evidenced by the weekly stories posted on GAF alone, calling police officers on someone and saying they're a threat is introducing lethal force to the situation in the form of police officers. Had the police given this guy enough time, he would've put down the toy gun.

Humoring the idea that this killing was justified suggests that it is in someway worth the lives of innocent people to immediately end potential dangerous situations, rather than hold your fire for a few more seconds to give the unarmed/non-threat person a chance to comply.

There are scores of stories even worse than this one where police execute people before than can comply, even after they've complied, even after they're on the ground handcuffed. Every time a thread has been made here about these stories, there are people who rush to say "hold off on passing judgment," while speculating from the point of view the non-threat dead person must have done something to deserve this, under the guise of being impartial.

Edit: I wonder though, do we even know the cop's race? What if he was african-american? what would GAF say?

Typical gaf-clusterfuck indeed.

 

[Binabik15]

For all of you saying "Oh, toy guns shouldn't look so real", well, here in Germany you can buy realistic looking replica airsoft guns and not be shot when having them. People hate them for the most part, but they exist. Every sport shooter is a suspected amok run waiting to be happen according to public opinion, so it isn't that police isn't called when people run around with airsoft guns that look real.

It has to be the shoot first,as questions later cop culture.

Spoiler

Except for that one time where cops shot a mentally disabled kid for not dropping his gun and instead trying to shoot at them.

 

[dabig2]

Black cops are susceptible to the same biases as white cops.

"But don't let it be a black and a white one
Cause they'll slam ya down to the street top
Black police showin out for the white cop"

 

[CouldBeWorse]

You do realize that pretty much every source article on this says toy gun, right?

They're all wrong, which is why the DA is trying to correct that part of the narrative:

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/crime/police-kill-man-air-rifle-walmart-ohio-article-1.1895479

A-huh.

Really poor attempt at changing the discussion and trying to bait me into a ridiculous argument.

Eh, this is a typical gaf-clusterfuck.

On one end, there's the people who think if a cop shoots a black person all fault and doubt goes towards the cops, because all cops are racist.

On the other, there's the people who think the person is an idiot for waving a fake gun and deserves to be killed.

Me? I'll just wait and see if more information comes up. Usually there's more to the story and could lead either way. If he indeed started waving the gun to the customers and did not comply to the officer's warning then it was obvious how that was going to end. Still, I think killing him was a bit too much, maybe shoot him in the leg or something.

Edit: I wonder though, do we even know the cop's race? What if he was african-american? what would GAF say?

Is anyone saying anything remotely like the bolded? He probably was being an idiot and even if he was, he doesn't DESERVE to die.

The whole shooting in the leg argument is ridiculous. That's harder to do and more dangerous for cops, for bystanders, etc. if you want to make that argument, it's better to say that they should have more non-lethal options that still hit the chest.

And the cops looked white.

 

[pompidu]

These aren't toy guns, they are bb/airsoft guns. And they are replicas of actual guns. Not nerf toys people.

 

[bidguy]

thats insane

what are they protecting themselves from with automatic weapons ?

 

[CrankyJay]

And that would be an example of journalists not doing a very good job. One of the articles linked in this thread identified it as an air rifle, right on down to the make and model.

I understand. Was just defending the OPs decision to follow suit. It wasn't like it was him sensationalizing it or pushing an agenda.

 

[bob_arctor]

Release the surveillance footage and remove all doubt.

My guess is he was loosely handling it because it was an empty BB gun. Probably not intentionally pointing it at anyone so much as carelessly handling it, leading the business end to be waved around as he inspected it and messed with it while babbling on the phone.

As for the, "he looked menacing" commentary from our marine...yea, okay. I'd imagine if cops rushed to me, guns drawn and said "freeze" or "drop it", I'd half-way think they were talking to someone behind me. Because surely they're not threatening to shoot me holding this BB gun. And in that pause, I'd be on my way to heaven.

Because shopping while black can be hazardous if you look "menacing". The logical conclusion if you look unhappy as a black man is that you might be intending to rob people. It's why I'm always smiling at white folk.

Good post. Pretty much exactly how I feel.

 

[mre]

If the following facts are true; He was carrying around a toy gun pointing it at people, or even alternatively; if he were carrying around a toy gun that had not yet purchased, then yes, the cops should be called. First, for aggravated assault. Second, for larceny.

First, let's look at larceny. He was carrying the rifle around in the open, while still on the premises of Wal-Mart. Even if he hadn't purchased it already, what on earth sort of evidence do you have that he was intending to steal it?

Second, aggravated assault. Here's Ohio's aggravated assault law:

2903.12 Aggravated assault.
(A) No person, while under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite the person into using deadly force, shall knowingly:

(1) Cause serious physical harm to another or to another's unborn;

(2) Cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to another's unborn by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance, as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.

What part of this sounds anything analogous to what happened here?

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

thats insane

what are they protecting themselves from with automatic weapons ?

Common sense.

 

[Speevy]

thats insane

what are they protecting themselves from with automatic weapons ?

Hot coffee. It must be destroyed.

 

[Foggy]

If I see someone walking around with a rifle in a public place I would absolutely fear for my life. But clearly the cops should've handled this better than they should have

 

[KillGore]

The whole shooting in the leg argument is ridiculous. That's harder to do and more dangerous for cops, for bystanders, etc. if you want to make that argument, it's better to say that they should have more non-lethal options that still hit the chest.

And the cops looked white.

You're right. I was just assuming they didn't have any other non-lethal "weapon" like a taser or rubber bullets. At least where I'm from, I've never seen cops with these options. Wasn't aware the US has these options for most cops.

 

[DopeToast]

This happened right in my damn town, in the suburb that I grew up in. Sad as hell.

Edit: And I don't know if anyone knows the Dayton area very well, but Beavercreek is one of the most affluent (and white) suburbs of Dayton. It's a very safe, very suburban area. I can't imagine the cops are at all used to handling this sort of situation. Gun violence has never been in problem in Beavercreek specifically. Just some background info.

 

[quik killa]

thats insane

what are they protecting themselves from with automatic weapons ?

Those aren't automatic weapons.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

Those aren't automatic weapons.

They're still assholes with "look at me, I'm GI Joe in a coffee shop" faces.

 

[Particle Physicist]

These aren't toy guns, they are bb/airsoft guns. And they are replicas of actual guns. Not nerf toys people.

A pellet gun doesn't make the killing any better. He may have been able to kill a squirrel with that gun. The horror. He also apparently just purchased it at the store and was on the phone with his mom during the incident.

 

[ZaCH3000]

I was raised to treat weapons with respect. You are holding something capable of death. It is your responsibility to adhere with procedural compliance. Gun handling and safety to this day is stressed.

So my experience would extend to a replica weapon with firing capabilities. You should not be on your cellphone while carrying it. You should not be aiming it at anyone, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

However, since I'm on the subject of procedural compliance, did the cops follow proper procedure? It doesn't appear so, from my perspective.

 

[Enron]

A pellet gun doesn't make the killing any better. He may have been able to kill a squirrel with that gun. The horror. He also apparently just purchased it at the store and was on the phone with his mom during the incident.

Uh, no. A pellet gun can definitely kill someone under the right circumstances. Its definitely powerful enough to break skin.

Source: someone who has shot themselves in the foot with a pellet rifle before.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

First, let's look at larceny. He was carrying the rifle around in the open, while still on the premises of Wal-Mart. Even if he hadn't purchased it already, what on earth sort of evidence do you have that he was intending to steal it?

The elements of common law larceny are as follows:The asportation of an object with the intent to permanently deprive the true owner of it. Asportation, or movement, of the object does not have to be out of the store. Movement for the purpose of larceny occurs when you touch the thing and move it but a mere inch. The act is completed as soon as you assume dominion over it, even in the slightest.

As for the intent, it can be inferred from his continued exercise of dominion over the object while it was in the store. A person, seeing a man treating a commodity as his own and carrying it around, messing with it, could infer reasonably that he intends to claim it as his own.

There are sufficient facts here to establish the core elements of larceny at common law.

Second, aggravated assault. Here's Ohio's aggravated assault law:


What part of this sounds anything analogous to what happened here?

Alright, so Ohio has a dumb aggravated assault law. Lets go with regular assault then. Or if we want to make it another felony; Ohio's Incitement of Violence statute would work wonderfully here.

 

[Lucky Forward]

thats insane

what are they protecting themselves from with automatic weapons ?

According to Wayne LaPierre...

...terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers [sic], haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all.

 

[watershed]

How did this happen? Did they even ask him to drop his "gun"?

 

[Jmanunknown]

A pellet gun doesn't make the killing any better. He may have been able to kill a squirrel with that gun. The horror. He also apparently just purchased it at the store and was on the phone with his mom during the incident.

It was not his mom it was the mother of his children. From what the mother of his children said and the racist women said the cops really did not give him time to comply. They just killed him.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

Since you're trying to be perfectly impartial here, consider what can't be put behind an "if" statement. The guy had a toy gun he was planning on buying from Wal-Mart. Someone called the cops on him in an open carry state. They provided the police with personal accounts that you've said can't be taken at face value. The cops killed him despite the gun not being real and no actual danger existing. Even if he was "waving it around" and carrying it like a toy rather than a loaded weapon, that does not justify lethal force.

First off, wrong. The use of deadly force is authorized if a reasonable person might conclude that it was not a toy gun. It is not an objective standard of whether, in actuality, it was a toy gun. If a person feared for their life, then use of deadly force was warranted.

As evidenced by the weekly stories posted on GAF alone, calling police officers on someone and saying they're a threat is introducing lethal force to the situation in the form of police officers. Had the police given this guy enough time, he would've put down the toy gun.

Which is well within any civilians right if a crime is being committed against them.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

It was not his mom it was the mother of his children. From what the mother of his children said and the racist women said the cops really did not give him time to comply. They just killed him.

What racist women???

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

According to Wayne LaPierre...

Knockout gamers and haters? This man is batshit insane.

 

[CouldBeWorse]

It was not his mom it was the mother of his children. From what the mother of his children said and the racist women said the cops really did not give him time to comply. They just killed him.

This is the crux of the investigation. What were his actions and how did the cops react. What did he say? Did he point the gun at them or other patrons? Was he being aggressive? How much time did the cops give him? Did they give adequate warning? Did they know it was an air rifle?

 

[KidGalactus]

The elements of common law larceny are as follows:The asportation of an object with the intent to permanently deprive the true owner of it. Asportation, or movement, of the object does not have to be out of the store. Movement for the purpose of larceny occurs when you touch the thing and move it but a mere inch. The act is completed as soon as you assume dominion over it, even in the slightest.

As for the intent, it can be inferred from his continued exercise of dominion over the object while it was in the store. A person, seeing a man treating a commodity as his own and carrying it around, messing with it, could infer reasonably that he intends to claim it as his own.

There are sufficient facts here to establish the core elements of larceny at common law.




Alright, so Ohio has a dumb aggravated assault law. Lets go with regular assault then. Or if we want to make it another felony; Ohio's Incitement of Violence statute would work wonderfully here.

Or, he could just be planning on buying it.

You sure do seem to be eager to engage in some rather strange acrobatics here, but to what end, I am not sure.

 

[Kinitari]

The elements of common law larceny are as follows:The asportation of an object with the intent to permanently deprive the true owner of it. Asportation, or movement, of the object does not have to be out of the store. Movement for the purpose of larceny occurs when you touch the thing and move it but a mere inch. The act is completed as soon as you assume dominion over it, even in the slightest.

As for the intent, it can be inferred from his continued exercise of dominion over the object while it was in the store. A person, seeing a man treating a commodity as his own and carrying it around, messing with it, could infer reasonably that he intends to claim it as his own.

There are sufficient facts here to establish the core elements of larceny at common law.

Yeah... by buying it. Holding an item in a store in a way that implies you want to own it can't put you under suspicion as a thief... can it? Isn't that usually what customers do? Generally in retail, the number one sign someone is going to steal is when they start inexplicably moving things around in a store. When someone openly and proudly carries a product around, that is not even KIND of suspicious.

 

[commedieu]

welp. there goes that whole.. million man NRA march.


We can't even hold toy guns.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Uh, no. A pellet gun can definitely kill someone under the right circumstances. Its definitely powerful enough to break skin.

Source: someone who has shot themselves in the foot with a pellet rifle before.

What circumstances exactly? Obviously if you are incredibly close to the target it can break skin and cause damage (like shooting your own foot), but it is incredibly rare to be able to kill a human with a pellet gun at any moderate distance.

That's besides the point though. These officers obviously shot first, asked questions later. I seriously doubt he pointed the gun at officers who had their own guns drawn. There also seems to be no other witness accounts that he was walking around and pointing the gun at people. The fact that he was walking around while talking on the phone makes the whole account quite shady to me.

 

[And_Gignac]

Police brutality (and impunity) is the one reason I would never move to the US.

 

[bob_arctor]

The elements of common law larceny are as follows:The asportation of an object with the intent to permanently deprive the true owner of it. Asportation, or movement, of the object does not have to be out of the store. Movement for the purpose of larceny occurs when you touch the thing and move it but a mere inch. The act is completed as soon as you assume dominion over it, even in the slightest.

As for the intent, it can be inferred from his continued exercise of dominion over the object while it was in the store. A person, seeing a man treating a commodity as his own and carrying it around, messing with it, could infer reasonably that he intends to claim it as his own.

There are sufficient facts here to establish the core elements of larceny at common law.




Alright, so Ohio has a dumb aggravated assault law. Lets go with regular assault then. Or if we want to make it another felony; Ohio's Incitement of Violence statute would work wonderfully here.

Nonsense.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

Yeah... by buying it. Holding an item in a store in a way that implies you want to own it can't put you under suspicion as a thief... can it? Isn't that usually what customers do? Generally in retail, the number one sign someone is going to steal is when they start inexplicably moving things around in a store. When someone openly and proudly carries a product around, that is not even KIND of suspicious.

Yes, it can rise to the level of larceny depending on what you are doing with the item. Are you carrying around a sealed container on your shoulder or in a shopping cart? Probably will not rise to the level of larceny. Are you grabbing a bottle of jiffy lube and lathering yourself in it while walking around the store? Probably larceny. The use here falls between these two ends of the spectrum. The man, from what I gather, was walking around with it, clicking the buttons, and slinging it over his shoulder or holding it as if it were his own. The intent can be inferred from these actions that he intended to claim it as his own, beyond the scope of the license granted to carry it up to the counter to buy it.

Nonsense.

Common law. Which is often equivalent of nonsense.

 

[commedieu]

What circumstances exactly? Obviously if you are incredibly close to the target it can break skin and cause damage (like shooting your own foot), but it is incredibly rare to be able to kill a human with a pellet gun at any moderate distance.

That's besides the point though. These officers obviously shot first, asked questions later. I seriously doubt he pointed the gun at officers who had their own guns drawn. There also seems to be no other witness accounts that he was walking around and pointing the gun at people. The fact that he was walking around while talking on the phone makes the whole account quite shady to me.

same shit, every story. There will be some beyond mental-gymnastic excuse of why this was perfectly fine. Just like the pass for the police officers for strangling the man to death. There will always be a justification for a black person getting shot doing something that wouldn't get a white person shot/arrested for buying things in barneys/etc.

As always.. of COURSE he was rushing the police with his negro jungle punch powers and extra tendons. That is why they had to shoot him. Its always the same story.

 

[Don't Laugh]

a bb gun is not a "toy gun"

bb guns are dangerous weapons

you simply don't wave a gun that can fire skin piercing projectiles around and point it at other people

 

[JBourne]

Oh, I thought he was talking to his mother on the phone. Doesn't change anything, although it's more sad now that I know he had kids.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

First off, wrong. The use of deadly force is authorized if a reasonable person might conclude that it was not a toy gun. It is not an objective standard of whether, in actuality, it was a toy gun. If a person feared for their life, then use of deadly force was warranted.

And when the person you're referring to is a police officer, they must give the "potential threat" a chance to surrender. What many don't (want to) realize is that police aren't supposed to act out of fear. If someone has what looks like a gun, they're supposed to give the opportunity to put the gun on the ground. I highly, highly doubt that anyone wouldn't comply to a police officer's orders in this situation given the time to realize that 1) the person shouting is a cop and 2) the cop is addressing them. Giving someone 3 seconds to put down a gun, real or otherwise, while shouting at them is not enough. A cop being afraid shouldn't make them shoot someone who isn't actually a threat.

Which is well within any civilians right if a crime is being committed against them.

If an actual crime is being committed. Being paranoid, making assumptions and calling the cops on someone knocking on your door or giving you what you perceive to be a nasty look is not reasonable.

We go back to the "if" statement issue here. That couple is no infallible. You say we can't take their word as gospel, even after the fact. How is their statement reason enough to roll up on someone who has a gun in a store that sells guns, in a state that allows open-carry?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Yeah... by buying it. Holding an item in a store in a way that implies you want to own it can't put you under suspicion as a thief... can it? Isn't that usually what customers do? Generally in retail, the number one sign someone is going to steal is when they start inexplicably moving things around in a store. When someone openly and proudly carries a product around, that is not even KIND of suspicious.

He was also black, that in itself implies intent to steal. A black man walking around as if he already owns or will soon own an item at a store is even worse!

 

[speculawyer]

Uh, no. A pellet gun can definitely kill someone under the right circumstances. Its definitely powerful enough to break skin.

Source: someone who has shot themselves in the foot with a pellet rifle before.

You are still alive.


Yes, you could kill someone with a pellet gun but it would be pretty rare.


This guy was a dumbass but unless he was really intentionally aiming it at people, the police need to mellow out and stop shooting first & asking questions later.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

And when the person you're referring to is a police officer, they must give the "potential threat" a chance to surrender. What many don't (want to) realize is that police aren't supposed to act out of fear. If someone has what looks like a gun, they're supposed to give the opportunity to put the gun on the ground. I highly, highly doubt that anyone wouldn't comply to a police officer's orders in this situation given the time to realize that 1) the person shouting is a cop and 2) the cop is addressing them. Giving someone 3 seconds to put down a gun, real or otherwise, while shouting at them is not enough. A cop being afraid shouldn't make them shoot someone who isn't actually a threat.

Police do not have to give the person a chance to surrender. Should they? Yes. Do most departments require it as part of their standard operating procedures? Yes. Legally required? No.

If an actual crime is being committed. Being paranoid, making assumptions and calling the cops on someone knocking on your door or giving you what you perceive to be a nasty look is not reasonable.

I would call the cops on a person giving me a nasty look. While I was studying for the bar exam I sued a man for throwing a piece of paper at me while I was at work.

 

[Jmanunknown]

What racist women???

The women and her husband who called the police. They used alot racist code words to describe the incident even assumed he was gonna rob the place. Yet they were the only ones to call the police on him and they were following him in store assuming he was a criminal.

 

[Foggy]

If an actual crime is being committed. Being paranoid, making assumptions and calling the cops on someone knocking on your door or giving you what you perceive to be a nasty look is not reasonable.

Kind of off-topic with what you're discussing, but considering what's happened with alarming frequency over the past couple years here, you wouldn't be paranoid or potentially call the cops if someone was walking around with what looked like an assault rifle in a Walmart? Is that really out of the question?

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

I would call the cops on a person giving me a nasty look. While I was studying for the bar exam I sued a man for throwing a piece of paper at me while I was at work.

...

 

[AuthenticM]

I never ever ever want to see this shit in Canada.

what the fuck

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Police do not have to give the person a chance to surrender. Should they? Yes. Do most departments require it as part of their standard operating procedures? Yes. Legally required? No.

And that's screwed up. They should, like you said. Just because something follows the written law to a "T" doesn't mean it is safe from criticism.

I would call the cops on a person giving me a nasty look. While I was studying for the bar exam I sued a man for throwing a piece of paper at me while I was at work.

I can't tell if you're posting in-character as boss Hogg, or if this is a joke, or what.

Kind of off-topic with what you're discussing, but considering what's happened with alarming frequency over the past couple years here, you wouldn't be paranoid or potentially call the cops if someone was walking around with what looked like an assault rifle in a Walmart? Is that really out of the question?

I would leave, and if I called the cops, I would make certain to accurately describe the situation. I would say no whots have been fired and I wouldn't mention anything I would think was my own opinion.

 

[speculawyer]

I never ever ever want to see this shit in Canada.

what the fuck

Fortunately, you will almost never see this in the USA. It is just some random kooks in a few places. Sad fellows who get a boner from their guns and take them out on dates.

 

[KidGalactus]

Police do not have to give the person a chance to surrender. Should they? Yes. Do most departments require it as part of their standard operating procedures? Yes. Legally required? No.





I would call the cops on a person giving me a nasty look. While I was studying for the bar exam I sued a man for throwing a piece of paper at me while I was at work.

Considering your arguments have been successfully dismantled by several GAFfers (who's points you have not bothered to engage), you probably aren't a very good lawyer.

 

[Foggy]

I would leave, and if I called the cops, I would make certain to accurately describe the situation. I would say no whots have been fired and I wouldn't mention anything I would think was my own opinion.

That certainly makes you more reasonable than most, but I certainly wouldn't hold someone to the fire for getting scared in that situation. There's plenty of blame to go around(mostly on the cops), but I would never blame someone for calling the cops on ANYONE carrying around a weapon like that in public.

 

[KidGalactus]

That certainly makes you more reasonable than most, but I certainly wouldn't hold someone to the fire for getting scared in that situation. There's plenty of blame to go around(mostly on the cops), but I would never blame someone for calling the cops on ANYONE carrying around a weapon like that in public.

In that state, it is not illegal to carry a rifle around in public (even if it's real).