Support NeoGAF

[Spring-Loaded]

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.

When it comes to someone potentially getting shot to death by police, it's important for one to check their own preconceptions. Calling police shouldn't carry with it the threat of an innocent person getting shot, but it does. People who make exaggerated and unncessary 911 calls should be held accountable — whether their fear is "understandable" doesn't matter.

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

Something that everyone should keep in mind, at the very least, all police officers. Especially when it's in a store that sells guns.

 

[EdibleKnife]

My opinion on this: I'll entertain the idea that he was waving it about in the store. Was he threatening to kill people or rob the store? Or rather was he just standing around with a gun? Seemingly the latter from the info we have now. I would have assumed that if it were the latter situation rather than the former, police would approach with a goal of identify and order to freeze rather than shoot on sight (what I would expect if the police were informed and aware of a target who openly was aggressive with a gun toward the customers). From what I know now, I wouldn't expect this level of response from the police if they were called about and found some guy just standing around with a gun, especially in an open carry state.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

When it comes to someone potentially getting shot to death by police, it's important for one to check their own preconceptions. Calling police shouldn't carry with it the threat of an innocent person getting shot, but it does. People who make exaggerated and unncessary 911 calls should be held accountable — whether their fear is "understandable" doesn't matter.

There are some ways of holding them accountable. We have criminal claims for interfering with the administration of justice; filing of false claims, wasting police resources, etc. Not to mention if the call was done maliciously, and not in good faith, this kid's estate can sue the couple for wrongful death. There is the other side of the coin.

 

[Foggy]

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

Haha, I lived in Ohio for quite some time and I don't particularly care if it's illegal or not. I'd rather some cops come and ascertain whether that person is legally carrying around that gun than assume everything is on the up and up.

 

[CouldBeWorse]

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.

It's always much easier to say what someone else SHOULD do from the safety of your keyboard when you don't have fear, adrenaline, or any other emotions running through your system.

I agree completely with you in that regard.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

There are some ways of holding them accountable. We have criminal claims for interfering with the administration of justice; filing of false claims, wasting police resources, etc. Not to mention if the call was done maliciously, and not in good faith, this kid's estate can sue the couple for wrongful death. There is the other side of the coin.

And none of that undoes an innocent person being shot to death. None of that is a guarantee even when it's warranted either.

It's always much easier to say what someone else SHOULD do from the safety of your keyboard when you don't have fear, adrenaline, or any other emotions running through your system.

I agree completely with you in that regard.

Yes, and fear/adrenaline/whatever doesn't change what's right and wrong.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

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.

I agree but who the fuck would follow them around the store???

 

[SimpleGamer]

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.

Yeah but imo I didn't think beavercreek was very minority friendly because they kept refusing to have public transportation come there.

 

[Foggy]

I agree but who the fuck would follow them around the store???

Damn idiots

 

[Uncle_Classy]

Man, I wondered if I would see this on GAF when I saw that this happened. Like DopeToast, I'm from Beavercreek and we have so little crime here, there is no way that the cops from this town are in anyway prepared to deal with a situation like that.

 

[Valhelm]

I agree but who the fuck would follow them around the store???

Somebody trying to determine if it's a toy or a real rifle.

 

[CouldBeWorse]

There are some ways of holding them accountable. We have criminal claims for interfering with the administration of justice; filing of false claims, wasting police resources, etc. Not to mention if the call was done maliciously, and not in good faith, this kid's estate can sue the couple for wrongful death. There is the other side of the coin.

How in the world could malicious intent be proved? Maybe if security footage shows the couple having a run-in with the victim and if my their language during the 911 call was misleading?

That should be easy to prove definitively, right? The call should be recorded and there is extensive security camera coverage.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

How in the world could malicious intent be proved? Maybe if security footage shows the couple having a run-in with the victim and if my their language during the 911 call was misleading?

That should be easy to prove definitively, right? The call should be recorded and there is extensive security camera coverage.

What's more important than punishments for poorly thought-out 911 phone calls in situations like this is making sure people consider the weight of what they're saying in these calls before they make them. If they were afraid, people would bring that up as if it justifies the "threatening stare"-type comments.

 

[EdibleKnife]

Somebody trying to determine if it's a toy or a real rifle.

Beyond the fact that they seem to have made the wrong call in the end, it seems strange to follow someone that's supposedly a threat

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

Somebody trying to determine if it's a toy or a real rifle.

That doesn't seem like a regular person's instinct at all to me.

Maybe a security guard.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

How in the world could malicious intent be proved? Maybe if security footage shows the couple having a run-in with the victim and if my their language during the 911 call was misleading?

That should be easy to prove definitively, right? The call should be recorded and there is extensive security camera coverage.

You can have the record from the 9-11 call introduced as a business record exception to hearsay, the security footage could be introduced, and you could probably have character witnesses to testify the couple are sheisty.

And none of that undoes an innocent person being shot to death. None of that is a guarantee even when it's warranted eitherg.

Aye, which is why the only real way of preventing stuff like this is to try desperately not to do anything stupid when you are out in public. It is a horrible burden, I realize, but thats just the nature of our society. There aren't too many other ways of going about tort law and criminal law, since they are designed to redress something that has occured, not prevent it.

 

[Uncle_Classy]

Yeah but imo I didn't think beavercreek was very minority friendly because they kept refusing to have public transportation come there.

Huh, and wouldn't you know, the first thing assholes from this town did was blame it on the RTA finally being allowed to bring in people (read: blacks) from downtown.

 

[ErnieMcCracken]

Haha, I lived in Ohio for quite some time and I don't particularly care if it's illegal or not. I'd rather some cops come and ascertain whether that person is legally carrying around that gun than assume everything is on the up and up.

This is what annoys me about open carry. Is this guy carrying an assault rifle to prove a point or is he here to shoot up the place? Call the cops and you look like an ass (and possibly lead to an innocent being shot) if he's open carry, don't call and possibly die if he's deranged... Good times.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Aye, which is why the only real way of preventing stuff like this is to try desperately not to do anything stupid when you are out in public. It is a horrible burden, I realize, but thats just the nature of our society. There aren't too many other ways of going about tort law and criminal law, since they are designed to redress something that has occured, not prevent it.

It doesn't have to actually be something stupid. All it has to be is something someone perceives as threatening, and there are plenty of people who are incapable is being impartial, even including a lot of police officers, it seems.

 

[Kinitari]

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.

I feel like unless the law is SIGNIFICANTLY different here, none of this makes sense. Unless what you are doing to a product in someway is -ruining- it while you're in the store, what you are doing to a product in the store cannot be inferred as theft. In fact, there have been cases where (when I worked in retail, for multiple years) someone putting something in their jacket was not enough - they could be paying for it at the counter, or even forget when they walk out - that's why the people at the front of the store are informed and ask the customer if they forgot to purchase x item in their pocket. Until someone leaves the store, how they handle a product IN the store has no bearing in matters of theft.

In my store, if someone was moving something around over and over, it would be 'suspicious behaviour' but we couldn't/wouldn't call the cops until they actually try to leave without paying.

We sold guitars at my store, and people picked them up, walked around and played with them like CRAZY before buying them.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

It doesn't have to actually be something stupid. All it has to be is something someone perceives as threatening, and there are plenty of people who are incapable is being impartial, even including a lot of police officers, it seems.

It is human nature I suppose. The only real way of getting around this is some kind of license to report. People needing to pass civic tests to be able to report a crime. But think about how much that would disadvantage people as well. It is a flawed system, but it is pretty dang good comparatively speaking.

 

[speedline]

Well, considering this happened in a Wal-Mart, there is security footage of the guy with the air rifle. It shouldn't be hard to determine how he was handling the gun or if he was pointing it at people. Air rifles are not toys, they are not sold in the toy department, they are sold in the sporting goods department along with the firearms. This gun comes in a retail box. Why it was removed from the box and why he thought it would be a good idea to carry it around the store is a mystery to me.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

It is human nature I suppose. The only real way of getting around this is some kind of license to report. People needing to pass civic tests to be able to report a crime. But think about how much that would disadvantage people as well. It is a flawed system, but it is pretty dang good comparatively speaking.

There's also just encouraging general critical thinking, another aspect of the nature of our society.

Saying the system is "pretty dang good" seems pointless when it's so often unsatisfactory. Why be so complacent, unless you're okay with stories like these?

 

[KidGalactus]

Haha, I lived in Ohio for quite some time and I don't particularly care if it's illegal or not. I'd rather some cops come and ascertain whether that person is legally carrying around that gun than assume everything is on the up and up.

It doesn't matter if you care one way or the other. If it is legal, then at the very least, that means that you shouldn't be shot to death (by police officers no less) for doing so.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

I feel like unless the law is SIGNIFICANTLY different here, none of this makes sense. Unless what you are doing to a product in someway is -ruining- it while you're in the store, what you are doing to a product in the store cannot be inferred as theft. In fact, there have been cases where (when I worked in retail, for multiple years) someone putting something in their jacket was not enough - they could be paying for it at the counter, or even forget when they walk out - that's why the people at the front of the store are informed and ask the customer if they forgot to purchase x item in their pocket. Until someone leaves the store, how they handle a product IN the store has no bearing in matters of theft.

In my store, if someone was moving something around over and over, it would be 'suspicious behaviour' but we couldn't/wouldn't call the cops until they actually try to leave without paying.

We sold guitars at my store, and people picked them up, walked around and played with them like CRAZY before buying them.

Those are two separate crimes really, criminal trespass to property v. larceny. The one you are talking about is primarily criminal trespass; when you destroy a product that does not belong to you. Larceny is a bit different. Again, the only requirements of larceny are;

A) Moving the item
B) With the intent of depriving the true owner of it.

The first element, moving, is satisfied by the slightest of movements. Even inches. The second, intent, can be inferred by a jury.

The standard of proof is indeed generally beyond reasonable doubt, but if a jury decides that the man is guilty of larceny, the only way to overturn it on evidential grounds is if:

No reasonable fact finder could have found to the contrary that an element did not exist.

The existence of an element can be met through circumstantial evidence. An unconventional usage of an item that signals some purpose in depriving the true owner is enough to meet this burden. For examples; adjusting the seat on a toy bicycle and riding it towards the entrance, adjusting the straps on a backpack and placing the text in a side pocket, or taking a toy gun and messing with the trigger while walking around the entire store aiming it at people.

All of these instances could give rise to the reasonable inference that they intend to steal it. Again, on appeal all you need is that reasonable inference.

What was happening for you was probably the cops being lazy and refusing to enforce it. You know what you do then? File a criminal complaint and flip off the cops.

PS: That last part was metaphorical. Please do not flip cops off based on my statements.

 

[Foggy]

It doesn't matter if you care one way or the other. If it is legal, then at the very least, that means that you shouldn't be shot to death (by police officers no less) for doing so.

I absolutely agree. The only reason I brought it up was in relation to calling the cops in the first place. What you're talking about is a whole different matter altogether than what I was talking about and I certainly don't think the cops were justified in shooting him(knowing the information at hand).

 

[Kinitari]

Those are two separate crimes really, criminal trespass to property v. larceny. The one you are talking about is primarily criminal trespass; when you destroy a product that does not belong to you. Larceny is a bit different. Again, the only requirements of larceny are;

A) Moving the item
B) With the intent of depriving the true owner of it.

The first element, moving, is satisfied by the slightest of movements. Even inches. The second, intent, can be inferred by a jury.

The standard of proof is indeed generally beyond reasonable doubt, but if a jury decides that the man is guilty of larceny, the only way to overturn it on evidential grounds is if:

No reasonable fact finder could have found to the contrary that an element did not exist.

The existence of an element can be met through circumstantial evidence. An unconventional usage of an item that signals some purpose in depriving the true owner is enough to meet this burden. For examples; adjusting the seat on a toy bicycle and riding it towards the entrance, adjusting the straps on a backpack and placing the text in a side pocket, or taking a toy gun and messing with the trigger while walking around the entire store aiming it at people.

All of these instances could give rise to the reasonable inference that they intend to steal it. Again, on appeal all you need is that reasonable inference.

What was happening for you was probably the cops being lazy and refusing to enforce it. You know what you do then? File a criminal complaint and flip off the cops.

PS: That last part was metaphorical. Please do not flip cops off based on my statements.

It seems like your third example isn't really... how do I say, in line with the other two? Looking it up a little, it looks like some states have concealment laws, where a person can be apprehended if they are trying to -hide- a product somewhere. And 'making a break for it' also could, I can see potentially be seen as an attempt at larceny.

But PLAYING with something in the store? Even if he was pointing the gun at baby strollers and making PEW PEW noises, that would be terrible, but it wouldn't have anything to do with larceny as far as I can see.

I'm not a lawyer in the states, or at all, so who knows - but something about that just doesn't make sense to me.

edit: this sounds more like what I know the law to be -

http://lifehacker.com/5853355/know-your-rights-if-a-store-detains-you-for-shoplifting

The first thing you need to know is what a store has to have or has to see in order to exercise their right to detain you. First, a witness or employee needs to establish probable cause. They need to actually see you take store merchandise and put it in your hand (as in, they can't just see you holding something that could have come from home or outside the store,) and they have to see you conceal or carry that merchandise away from its location and either depart the store or walk towards the exit (and away from the cashiers) with the merchandise in hand or concealed on your person. Photo by Dan Previte.

Depending on your jurisdiction, you cannot even be approached until you've left the store premises.

I guess what probably cause means depends on the state as well - but the link in the article shows this as probably cause:

To establish a solid base for probable cause, and prevent false arrest claims, there are six universally accepted steps that a merchant should follow before detaining someone suspected of shoplifting:

You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
You must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away or convert your merchandise
You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store

Mind you, it's just a life hacker article and a link to some site I know nothing about, but I am actually really trying to see how playing with a product in a store could give probable cause for larceny in any way.

 

[Stinkles]

It's amazing how many people missed this. Gaf gonna' gaf,

The quotes from the "terrified witnesses" (one of whom was following him around the store gauging his dehumanizing intent) all sound like they are, and I am sure it's a coincidence, white folks.

 

[Foggy]

The quotes from the "terrified witnesses" (one of whom was following him around the store gauging his dehumanizing intent) all sound like they are, and I am sure it's a coincidence, white folks.

It's from a relatively affluent Dayton suburb so I think that's a safe guess

 

[ElfArmy177]

Hate this GIF, as its usually used inappropriately. Its obvious what he's saying, and its easy to follow. Its also on subject. What's the problem?

 

[TheChocolateWar]

It seems like your third example isn't really... how do I say, in line with the other two? Looking it up a little, it looks like some states have concealment laws, where a person can be apprehended if they are trying to -hide- a product somewhere. And 'making a break for it' also could, I can see potentially be seen as an attempt at larceny.

But PLAYING with something in the store? Even if he was pointing the gun at baby strollers and making PEW PEW noises, that would be terrible, but it wouldn't have anything to do with larceny as far as I can see.

I'm not a lawyer in the states, or at all, so who knows - but something about that just doesn't make sense to me.

The concealment laws are an entirely separate offense. How criminal law works in the states is basically that we have two types of criminal laws; codified statutory laws and common laws. A person can be guilty of more than one criminal offense. A person can be convicted of both larceny and trespass at the same time if they move an item, intending to deprive some body, and then destroy the item. Those are two offenses in one.

The element we are talking about here is; intent to deprive. Intent to deprive can be inferred from someone taking an item around the store and playing with it. Why? Because when you go into a store you are granted a license. A license is the allowance of you to enter the premises for a specific purpose. The extent of what you are allowed to do is defined by that license.

If you exceed the scope of it, you are committing a crime. For instance, you may enter Sweet Frog Icecreamery to purchase ice cream and eat. You may not enter Sweet Frog Icecreamery to smear crayons all on the walls and ceiling. Doing so, you violate your license.

When you enter a store like Walmart, Walmart is not saying, "Come all ye hooligans, play with our stuff without buying it." They are saying, "Come in, browse around, and buy our stuff."

Walmart does not consent to people going in there and inter meddling with their merchandise to this extent. Therefore, it is a larceny. (And also the civil law tort of conversion, but that is a separate issue)

PS: A store does not need probable cause to detain a shop lifter. They need a good faith suspicion. They are not agents of the government.

 

[Stinkles]

Well, considering this happened in a Wal-Mart, there is security footage of the guy with the air rifle. It shouldn't be hard to determine how he was handling the gun or if he was pointing it at people. Air rifles are not toys, they are not sold in the toy department, they are sold in the sporting goods department along with the firearms. This gun comes in a retail box. Why it was removed from the box and why he thought it would be a good idea to carry it around the store is a mystery to me.

Yesterday I bought a razor scooter for my daughter at Big 5. It came in a similar box, similar size. I unpacked it in the store to make sure the handlebars adjusted to her height. There's nothing mysterious about unpacking it and playing with it. Zero.

 

[mre]

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.

Common law larceny? Ohio has a fucking larceny statute. Why are you trotting out this common law larceny tripe?

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.

Well let's just charge everybody in every store everywhere who walks around the store with any of that store's merchandise with "common law larceny." This is absolutely ridiculous.

I really, really hope you're not an attorney.

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.

Here's Ohio's statute for "regular" assault:

2903.13 Assault.
(A) No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to another's unborn.

(B) No person shall recklessly cause serious physical harm to another or to another's unborn.

Incitement to Violence:

2917.01 Inciting to violence.
(A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply:

(1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed;

(2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence.

Incitement to violence applies when the defendant is urging another party to engage in some sort of violent act. Who did he incite to violence? The police who shot him?

 

[anaron]

meanwhile

 

[Nicktendo86]

Yesterday I bought a razor scooter for my daughter at Big 5. It came in a similar box, similar size. I unpacked it in the store to make sure the handlebars adjusted to her height. There's nothing mysterious about unpacking it and playing with it. Zero.

There is a bit of a difference between what to do with a scooter and what to do with an air rifle surely.

Anyway, we just don't know what actually happened in detail, but the CCTV should clear a lot of it up. My gut says, sadly, that if he were white he would still be alive. Tragic that yet another person has lost their life to guns.

 

[GalacticAE]

Yea i was saying watch how fast people change their tune when its a black or hispanic dude is carrying a rifle around chipotle or whatever. Suddenly these white people fear for their lives. Fuck all of this.

 

[CrimsonCommie]

This shit is ridiculous but nothing will happen and nothing will change.

 

[Lucky Forward]

...the hell?

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news...-evacuated-after-gusnshots-fired-inside-store

Ronald Ritchie, an ex-Marine, said the man was pointing a black rifle at people near the pet section and that “he’s loading it right now.” Later, Ritchie said, “He looked like he was trying to load it, I don’t know.” He then added, “He just pointed it at two children.”

http://newsone.com/3042992/john-crawford-ohio-police-walmart/

“He looked like he was going to go violently,” said Ronald Ritchie, the former marine who called police. “If he would have dropped the weapon, he could have came out with his life, but unfortunately, he didn’t.”

http://bearingarms.com/walmart-airgun-death-looks-worse-every-passing-day/

The more we hear about the shooting death of John Crawford III inside a Beavercreek, Ohio Walmart, the worse it sounds. Evidence continues to suggest that Crawford was effectively SWATted by an ex-Marine.

The behavior of the Ritchies as they described it was odd, to put it mildly. A man who seriously fears that he is in sight of an armed threat does not allow his injured wife to trail the “dangerous suspect” in a Walmart scooter, where she would be an easy target.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

Common law larceny? Ohio has a fucking larceny statute. Why are you trotting out this common law larceny tripe?

Because a person can be guilty of both the codified larceny statute and the common law offense of larceny. The codification in Ohio of common law larceny includes all the elements of common law larceny.

In a common law society, like the United States, you can be prosecuted under both the codified criminal code of a state, as well as the common law crimes that the entire United States recognizes. That is how common law works.

Well let's just charge everybody in every store everywhere who walks around the store with any of that store's merchandise with "common law larceny." This is absolutely ridiculous.

Again, its only larceny if you exceed the scope of consent the store has granted you. The store allows you to place items in the shopping cart and go buy it. In limited circumstances, a store employee may allow you to sample merchandise. The store does not allow you to go in and putz around with all their merchandise however you see fit.

Here's Ohio's statute for "regular" assault

Super, time to explain the difference between assault and battery, and how the codified assault statute does not preclude prosecution for the underlying common law assault. Common law assault is the intentional causal of apprehension on the part of another person of a harmful or offensive contact. The pointing of a gun at a person can cause a person to believe they will imminently be shot or touched with the butt of the gun. Therefore, it satisfies the common law assault. As codified, this statute is talking about battery, which is the harmful touching of another person. Many states, like Ohio, like to lump assault and battery into the same crime. However, you can still be charged for the underlying common law assault crime. Why? Because we are NOT a civic law society (with the exception of Louisiana and New Jersey). You can be charged with common law offenses as well.

Incitement to violence applies when the defendant is urging another party to engage in some sort of violent act. Who did he incite to violence? The police who shot him?

It could indeed have been the police, or the people he was allegedly assaulting. When you assault someone, you beg self-defense violence. Therefore, whenever you assault, this is a lesser included offense.

 

[ElfArmy177]

meanwhile

Weird, I don't see them pointing it at anyone.

Are we assuming this man was holding it down, and the cop shot him without confronting him first? Also, these guns are all on a shoulder strap... his was not...

Correct me if Im wrong but from what Im understanding of this story.

1.Dude is (playfully?) pointing a gun at people
2. People get scared and call cops
3. Somehow the dude gets shot - which I highly doubt the cop just jumped in and shot without making himself known.
4. GAF is upset because hes black.....?

I understand everyone is quick to jump on the hate cop band wagon - and its for good reason. But lets not assume all of these people (black or white, or Hispanic) are as innocent as people may seem to believe. Part of the issue is that when something like this happens, its more beneficial for the news or the website to state as little facts as possible, as "cop assault" is big right now.

 

[Kinyou]

The quotes from the "terrified witnesses" (one of whom was following him around the store gauging his dehumanizing intent) all sound like they are, and I am sure it's a coincidence, white folks.

Btw waving doesn't mean aiming, right? Probably just that he was carrying it relatively loosely which makes sense since it's a freaking toy gun

 

[BronsonLee]

Yeah, all the 'pointing and waving it at other people!' testimony goes way out the damn window when the people claiming that are

A: The people who called the cops on him (they're trying to justify their actions, which were the launching point to two people dying)
B: The people who followed him around the whole store, one on a fucking scooter

 

[Stinkles]

Weird, I don't see them pointing it at anyone.

Are we assuming this man was holding it down, and the cop shot him without confronting him first? Also, these guns are all on a shoulder strap... his was not...

Correct me if Im wrong but from what Im understanding of this story.

1.Dude is (playfully?) pointing a gun at people
2. People get scared and call cops
3. Somehow the dude gets shot - which I highly doubt the cop just jumped in and shot without making himself known.
4. GAF is upset because hes black.....?

I understand everyone is quick to jump on the hate cop band wagon - and its for good reason. But lets not assume all of these people (black or white, or Hispanic) are as innocent as people may seem to believe. Part of the issue is that when something like this happens, its more beneficial for the news or the website to state as little facts as possible, as "cop assault" is big right now.

Yes, cops and gun advocates are the real victims here. Who will think of them? So unfairly oppressed and so powerless!

 

[ErnieMcCracken]

Weird, I don't see them pointing it at anyone.

Are we assuming this man was holding it down, and the cop shot him without confronting him first? Also, these guns are all on a shoulder strap... his was not...

Correct me if Im wrong but from what Im understanding of this story.

1.Dude is (playfully?) pointing a gun at people
2. People get scared and call cops
3. Somehow the dude gets shot - which I highly doubt the cop just jumped in and shot without making himself known.
4. GAF is upset because hes black.....?

I understand everyone is quick to jump on the hate cop band wagon - and its for good reason. But lets not assume all of these people (black or white, or Hispanic) are as innocent as people may seem to believe. Part of the issue is that when something like this happens, its more beneficial for the news or the website to state as little facts as possible, as "cop assault" is big right now.

Hopefully we'll get the CCTV. Provided there isn't some mysterious "failure" in the recording at the time of confrontation...

 

[JoeInky]

As a British person, this looks real fucking stupid.

Why is this even allowed in a country as scared of public shootings as you are? Is it really just because they're white that people don't call the cops on them or whatever?

 

[Jito]

Lol America.

 

[Kinitari]

Weird, I don't see them pointing it at anyone.

Are we assuming this man was holding it down, and the cop shot him without confronting him first? Also, these guns are all on a shoulder strap... his was not...

Correct me if Im wrong but from what Im understanding of this story.

1.Dude is (playfully?) pointing a gun at people
2. People get scared and call cops
3. Somehow the dude gets shot - which I highly doubt the cop just jumped in and shot without making himself known.
4. GAF is upset because hes black.....?

I understand everyone is quick to jump on the hate cop band wagon - and its for good reason. But lets not assume all of these people (black or white, or Hispanic) are as innocent as people may seem. Part of the issue is that when something like this happens, its more beneficial for the news or the website to state as little facts as possible, as "cop assault" is big right now.

I think the issue is

1. The 'pointing' it at people thing is in question. The person who called the police seems to be saying that, but they also said he was loading the gun and pointing at people with the desire to shoot. I don't know about guns, or pellet guns, but I imagine they are loaded differently and an 'ex-marine' would be able to tell the difference, and I have read nothing about the gun being loaded with pellets anyway.

2. I think another witness claimed he was shot after they told him to get on the ground. But I am not really 100% on this, from my admittedly quick reading it was "Drop the weapon" he responds panicked "It's just a toy!" and then they shoot and say "get on the ground".

 

[Nicktendo86]

As a British person, this looks real fucking stupid.

As a human being it should look fucking stupid for people to walk around with firearms. What is wrong with people?

As a fellow Brit the thought of America actually scares me, I just cannot get my head around gun culture.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

Lol America.

You could ignorantly say that about any geographical location when possible injustice happens aka everywhere.

Unless you mean the Human Action Figures in supermarkets, then yes, they're fucking idiots(my opinion!!!)

 

[ElfArmy177]

Yes, cops and gun advocates are the real victims here. Who will think of them? So unfairly oppressed and so powerless!

Not at all what I was saying. but if you haven't noticed, cops assaulting people are all over Facebook feeds and neogaf lately.

That's all my point was... is people jumping to conclusion... kinda like what you did with my post.