Did Dayton, OH cops kill an innocent man

longslide10

New member
Was An Innocent Man SWATted to Death? Who are more paranoid the police or wallyworld shoppers?


These facts we know to be true:

John Crawford III was shot and killed Tuesday night by Beavercreek, Ohio police officers in a Walmart.
Crawford was holding either an airsoft (6mm plastic projectile) or BB/pellet (4.5mm/.177-caliber metal projectile) rifle sold by Walmart that he picked up in the store.
Crawford was on the phone when he was shot.
Crawford did not have a criminal record.

From there, the tale of what happened next diverges significantly depending upon the perspective of who is telling the story.

LeeCee Johnson, who claims that she is the mother of Crawford’s children, says that Mr. Crawford was on the phone with her when he was shot. What she heard suggests that he was gunned down with little warning.

LeeCee Johnson, who said she is the mother of Crawford’s children, said she was on a cell phone call with Crawford when he was shot by officers. She said Crawford went to the area to visit family members.

“We was just talking. He said he was at the video games playing videos and he went over there by the toy section where the toy guns were. And the next thing I know, he said ‘It’s not real,’ and the police start shooting and they said ‘Get on the ground,’ but he was already on the ground because they had shot him,” she said, adding: “And I could hear him just crying and screaming. I feel like they shot him down like he was not even human.”

According to Ms. Johnson’s point-of-view as the person on the other end of the phone, it sounded to her as if Crawford was unaware that others may have considered him a threat. She claims that she heard him address someone and say “it’s not real,” at which point he was shot and then someone (presumably police officers) yell at him to “get on the ground,” after he’d already been shot.


Link Removed
 
I have been following this incident after it was reported and I see many red flags. Initial reports and stories have since been changed. Would like to hear the 911 calls and see the video from the security cams. Personally at this point I think the cops over reacted to the situation. I also don't buy the fact that the person that called 911 was so scared but still managed to follow the guy around the store. That doesn't make sense to me. Hopefully more info will come out. I don't think this is the end of the story.
 
I'm unclear on the bb gun... Did he bring it in or did he pick up the bb gun or whatever it was at the store, like to buy it? Man, this is ridiculous.
 
The BB gun was on the shelf in the store. It seems he, according to early reports, took the gun out of the box. The thing that bothers me is the tight lid kept on the in store videos.
 
The thing that bothers me is the tight lid kept on the in store videos.

The videos are possible evidence of a crime committed. I don't have an issue with them not being publicly released until after the internal investigation says the officer(s) were justified in shooting, then they should be released to the public.
 
While preliminary reports seem to make it sound like the guy was holding the non-firearm rifle, I have found reports identifying the whatever-it-was with these pictures:

AirRifle.jpg



The rifle doesn't have the orange-tipped muzzle of a toy or air soft rifle, because it's not a toy or air soft rifle, it's an air gun capable of shooting a .177 projectile at 800 FPS. They are in the sporting goods department of Walmart adjacent to the guns, knives and ammo counter/register. I know because I bought my Gamo Whisper there a few years ago, which sends the same projectile downrange at 1200 FPS and is deadly accurate easily out to 30 - 50 yards. Is it deadly to humans at relatively close range? I can't say for sure, but I can say that the first target setup I made had a 1/4" plywood backstop, and at 1200 FPS it blew right through that. I replaced it with 1/2" and at close range you can still see an inverse "dimple" and the beginnings of splintering from the back side, though it's never blown all the way through that. Still, the "THWACK!" it makes when it hits sounds almost like a .22 shot, and I know it would hurt like heck in any case. As anyone can see, there is no way to distinguish that air rifle with it's full-on .223/5.56 center-fire cartridge-shooting big brother just by looking at it, even from only a short distance away.

I'm not suggesting that the cops weren't too quick on the trigger in this instance, but if John Crawford really did have this weapon out of the box and shouldering it or otherwise simulating aiming and/or presenting it at a ready position, there is contributory negligence on his part to what resulted as far as I'm concerned.

Note: The bottom picture of the air rifle above is linked to a Link Removed essay on the incident. It sounds about right to me.

Blues
 
With regard to the pellet gun... Not sure if this guy intended to steal the thing or to rob the store, but at present the man had no criminal record, so I think its fair to give him the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, I find it very hard to believe that a police officer would have reason to fear for his life from what we have seen (and conjectured) up to date. Would this guy have likely brandished his pellet gun at an armed officer? Seems very unlikely outside of a suicide by cop situation. It looks to me like this police officer decided to shoot first and ask questions later.
 
I have been following this incident after it was reported and I see many red flags. Initial reports and stories have since been changed. Would like to hear the 911 calls and see the video from the security cams. Personally at this point I think the cops over reacted to the situation. I also don't buy the fact that the person that called 911 was so scared but still managed to follow the guy around the store. That doesn't make sense to me. Hopefully more info will come out. I don't think this is the end of the story.

The guy that called it in was a former Marine. I find it a little hard to believe that he couldn't identify a toy gun and even harder to believe it scared him so bad. Lots of things don't add up unless it's to conclude it was a coverup.
 
It was a member of MDA, calling the cops to report an openly carried rifle in a store with children present.
Thanks "Moms", way to prove your point.
 
Last edited:
I think Walmart has some liability in that they didn't have it behind the counter.

To me the crazy thing is this... even if the rifle was real. You don't know what happened yet. Maybe it was on the floor and he just picked it up. Maybe it was an open box item for sale. This ought to work hand in hand with the golden rule, know your target. I keep seeing where cops shoot on sight and that is what must stop. Maybe it means that the cops suffer a few more casualties... but even if that's true, they will probably cause fewer casualties too.
 
Maybe it means that the cops suffer a few more casualties... but even if that's true, they will probably cause fewer casualties too.

Police don't like it when they have constraints placed upon their ability to commit violent acts under the guise of "officer safety":

Link Removed

More than 100 Seattle police officers have signed onto a lawsuit challenging a new use-of-force policy, saying it violates officers' constitutional rights to protect themselves and others. The 88-page use-of-force policy went into effect in January.

They might have a "constitutional right to protect...others" but the Supreme Court has ruled that police officers have no duty or obligation to protect individuals from violent criminal acts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

From the first article linked:

“But I will say: the Seattle Police Department is under a federally-mandated court order, in part because of a disturbing pattern of unnecessary use of force and other forms of unconstitutional policing."
 
Police don't like it when they have constraints placed upon their ability to commit violent acts under the guise of "officer safety":

Link Removed

They might have a "constitutional right to protect...others" but the Supreme Court has ruled that police officers have no duty or obligation to protect individuals from violent criminal acts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

From the first article linked:

Any time I hear about officer safety, I always want to ask, what about citizen safety? Each time there is a shooting and a innocent bystander is hurt or killed, and then they drop all the responsibility on the suspect, I think that's wrong. I can understand a policeman firing back when fired upon... I totally get it. But indescriminate firing in the general direction of BGs needs to be looked at. Also, firing upon a suspect who is not threatening an officer's safety needs to be looked at. There is no reason I can understand that officers should be shooting at unarmed suspects. Even if the suspect is armed, for all they know the suspect has a right to be armed, so they need to find out what's going on first. Also, if a cop is too fat to catch a suspect, he can use his radio to call for help instead of charging through a residential area guns blazing. If we could eliminate just one thing that would make a huge difference for my trust of our LEOs it would be for their seemingly easy transition to use of deadly force with little to no consequence.
 
IMO police should have mandatory chest cams.

If the fellow was walking around with it perhaps he was going to buy it and shopping ? So shopping can get you shot ?
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,530
Messages
610,685
Members
75,029
Latest member
fizzicist
Back
Top