quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Let's male this simple. I fully understand your point. Like most gunaphobs you assume that failure to agree with you equals lack of comprehension. You go into a situation with a crazy person waving a loaded gun around aiming at children. How long a conversation do you have with said crazy person.

No you really don't understand my point, and like most ignorant people you have a tendency to attribute positions to people that are simply not true.

I'm not a gunaphobe at all. I am certainly not a mouth foamingly pro-gun advocate either, but I have more experience than most Europeans have with firearms.

If the police officers did not see the victim waving the gun around, aiming it at children, and behaving in a crazy way then they are culpable.

If you pull the trigger, you are responsible for the consequences. Just as if I shoot a hind with calf simply because someone tells me it's an elderly stag, I am to blame.

I cannot believe that someone who so clearly believes in safety, and responsible gun ownership, handling and use would be so unwilling to accept the very basic principle that the person pulling the trigger is always ultimately responsible for the selection of the target and the decision to pull the trigger. Now if you maintain that you really do disagree with this position, that's fine we will just have to disagree on this point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

OK K, I was under the impression that there was no warning, if you're suggesting that there was a warning (and I'm more than happy to take your word for it) that does change things, but not to the point of exonerating the shooter completely.

Yes, of course there's a common sense argument that if a police officer gives you a choice to comply or be shot the smart move is to comply.

But, I don't think that a lack of compliance is justification in itself for shooting. The second amendment protects a citizen's right to bear arms but the fifth also protects their right to due process. And even if summary justice were ok, I'm not sure that evading arrest attracts the death penalty in any state of the US.

If the lack of compliance caused the officers to reasonably believe that the person was going to pose a threat to them or others, then that would provide sufficient justification for me. If they were relying on the 911 report then, in my opinion they were deeply negligent in taking the action they did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

OK K, I was under the impression that there was no warning, if you're suggesting that there was a warning (and I'm more than happy to take your word for it) that does change things, but not to the point of exonerating the shooter completely.

Yes, of course there's a common sense argument that if a police officer gives you a choice to comply or be shot the smart move is to comply.

But, I don't think that a lack of compliance is justification in itself for shooting. The second amendment protects a citizen's right to bear arms but the fifth also protects their right to due process. And even if summary justice were ok, I'm not sure that evading arrest attracts the death penalty in any state of the US.

If the lack of compliance caused the officers to reasonably believe that the person was going to pose a threat to them or others, then that would provide sufficient justification for me. If they were relying on the 911 report then, in my opinion they were deeply negligent in taking the action they did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: steelchip
wtf is wrong with you...seriously....if these guns look secured to you then you dont have the brains to own one..and the one in the video was obviously just laying loose on the shelf..but for some reason only known by you that you want to continue to argue...you are one of the most pathetic excuses of a human being ive had the displeasure of encountering on the net.......

All your pictures showed was that one of each model was out of it's box. They were still sitting on a shelf with a bunch of others, all still in boxes. And one, even if it wasn't in it's box was still zip tied to the backing. This makes it seem that Crawford had a choice, one in a box, or one NOT in a box. Why would he have possibly thought that grabbing an unboxed "rifle" and wandering around the store with it was a good idea?

Even if they weren't "secured" in some locked case, shouldn't an adult have been smart enough to realize what could happen if he walked around a store pointing a gun at things? It's a REALLY bad idea. It wasn't all that long ago that we had that couple go on a shooting rampage, in a Walmart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: steelchip

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: steelchip
wtf is wrong with you...seriously....if these guns look secured to you then you dont have the brains to own one..and the one in the video was obviously just laying loose on the shelf..but for some reason only known by you that you want to continue to argue...you are one of the most pathetic excuses of a human being ive had the displeasure of encountering on the net.......

All your pictures showed was that one of each model was out of it's box. They were still sitting on a shelf with a bunch of others, all still in boxes. And one, even if it wasn't in it's box was still zip tied to the backing. This makes it seem that Crawford had a choice, one in a box, or one NOT in a box. Why would he have possibly thought that grabbing an unboxed "rifle" and wandering around the store with it was a good idea?

Even if they weren't "secured" in some locked case, shouldn't an adult have been smart enough to realize what could happen if he walked around a store pointing a gun at things? It's a REALLY bad idea. It wasn't all that long ago that we had that couple go on a shooting rampage, in a Walmart.

i disagree...what it shows to me is that after the shooting walmart didnt enact a proactive measure..how hard would have been for corporate to send out a memo telling all store managers to make sure all open boxed of loose stock bb guns are removed...and to put the anti theft wires around each box on the shelf...the industry had a chance to ah (regulate itself if you will)..but failed...i too am puzzled at the way crawford just picked up the gun like he was picking up a gallon of milk...most people buying one stand and look over all the models before they decide...but you can tell clearly that it was out of the box on the shelf by the way he just picked it up mid stride while walking...maybe he just thought it looked cool and was gonna check it out...who knows for sure...and if you watch the complete video...none of the other shoppers seemed to blink a eye over him walking around with it...he even walked past a isle with 2 sales associates standing in it...one would have thought someone from the store would have approached him and said (sir...im sorry but you cant carry that gun around the store..if you wish to purchase it we ll hold it for you in sporting goods..)....so now you have a 2 people dead who shouldnt have died that day...all because of some idiot made a false 911 call..who has yet to be charged...

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: steelchip

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: steelchip
wtf is wrong with you...seriously....if these guns look secured to you then you dont have the brains to own one..and the one in the video was obviously just laying loose on the shelf..but for some reason only known by you that you want to continue to argue...you are one of the most pathetic excuses of a human being ive had the displeasure of encountering on the net.......

All your pictures showed was that one of each model was out of it's box. They were still sitting on a shelf with a bunch of others, all still in boxes. And one, even if it wasn't in it's box was still zip tied to the backing. This makes it seem that Crawford had a choice, one in a box, or one NOT in a box. Why would he have possibly thought that grabbing an unboxed "rifle" and wandering around the store with it was a good idea?

Even if they weren't "secured" in some locked case, shouldn't an adult have been smart enough to realize what could happen if he walked around a store pointing a gun at things? It's a REALLY bad idea. It wasn't all that long ago that we had that couple go on a shooting rampage, in a Walmart.

i disagree...what it shows to me is that after the shooting walmart didnt enact a proactive measure..how hard would have been for corporate to send out a memo telling all store managers to make sure all open boxed of loose stock bb guns are removed...and to put the anti theft wires around each box on the shelf...the industry had a chance to ah (regulate itself if you will)..but failed...i too am puzzled at the way crawford just picked up the gun like he was picking up a gallon of milk...most people buying one stand and look over all the models before they decide...but you can tell clearly that it was out of the box on the shelf by the way he just picked it up mid stride while walking...maybe he just thought it looked cool and was gonna check it out...who knows for sure...and if you watch the complete video...none of the other shoppers seemed to blink a eye over him walking around with it...he even walked past a isle with 2 sales associates standing in it...one would have thought someone from the store would have approached him and said (sir...im sorry but you cant carry that gun around the store..if you wish to purchase it we ll hold it for you in sporting goods..)....so now you have a 2 people dead who shouldnt have died that day...all because of some idiot made a false 911 call..who has yet to be charged...

2 people dead, who is the other one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

That this shooting happened at all begins with Walmart and not having their guns secured, boxed, and the area heavily watched. This never should have happened in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

there were actuallay two complaints: one is that the guy was not aiming at anything and not even ready to use the rifle in that moment so not posing an imminent treath, so basically the point you were making; the second is you hear the warning in the video at the 8h 26' 56" mark and you hear the shots at 8h 26' 57".

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

there were actuallay two complaints: one is that the guy was not aiming at anything and not even ready to use the rifle in that moment so not posing an imminent treath, so basically the point you were making; the second is you hear the warning in the video at the 8h 26' 56" mark and you hear the shots at 8h 26' 57".

1) At various point during the video, Crawford is approached by other customers. When he turns towards them, he's pointing the gun in their general direction.

2) The officers were told that he was seen attempting to load the weapon. With most guns, it's almost impossible to tell whether or not it's loaded by just looking at it, especially from a distance. (Yes, there are some pistols that have a small red indicator that pops up if a round is in the chamber, but that faces away from the barrel, so it's not visible from the front.) This is another example of people wanting the police to be able to magically know that the "gun" was only a pellet rifle and wasn't loaded.

3) The warning was given, Crawford turned towards the officers, they fired.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I have a problem with "it looks like he is loading it" it didn't look anything like he was.
The cops were set up at least as much as Crawford.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I have a problem with "it looks like he is loading it" it didn't look anything like he was.
The cops were set up at least as much as Crawford.

I agree, it really didn't look anything like he was loading it, other then that he had it turned over and was fiddling with it. Now maybe the caller didn't know that, he was seeing this from a distance and admitted he was scared to get any closer. Or maybe he was looking to cause trouble for a guy with a gun? No way to know unfortunately. I think he sure as hell should be questioned, but if he says that he was just scared of another Walmart shooting spree, how can you prove differently?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

I'm sorry but I disagree. I know that this has become a mocked concept, but personal accountability still has some meaning, or at least it should. Crawford was an adult. Just because Walmart didn't lock up it's pellet rifles, he should have known better then to walk around in public waving a rifle around. There are too many crazies around, crazies who stage shootings in crowded locations and crazies who dislike guns enough to cause trouble for anyone with one, to think that it's smart to walk around a public location holding a weapon.

If I buy a fast car, drive down the highway at 150, and crash, it's not GMs fault. If I get drunk, hop in my car and kill someone, it's not Jim Beans fault. So no, I don't see this as Walmart's fault.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

I'm sorry but I disagree. I know that this has become a mocked concept, but personal accountability still has some meaning, or at least it should. Crawford was an adult. Just because Walmart didn't lock up it's pellet rifles, he should have known better then to walk around in public waving a rifle around. There are too many crazies around, crazies who stage shootings in crowded locations and crazies who dislike guns enough to cause trouble for anyone with one, to think that it's smart to walk around a public location holding a weapon.

If I buy a fast car, drive down the highway at 150, and crash, it's not GMs fault. If I get drunk, hop in my car and kill someone, it's not Jim Beans fault. So no, I don't see this as Walmart's fault.

I fully agree with you. I am not holding the guy blameless in all of this which is why I wrote that it begins with Walmart. The guy did something really stupid, and with the mass shootings that have happened, one would have to be a little shy in the IQ department to walk around in a public place like that brandishing a weapon. Had Walmart secured these weapon we wouldn't be having this discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

No, I do not assume that disagreeing with me is evidence of ignorance. I think that you are both stupid and ignorant for many other reasons.

For example, you are too stupid to understand that when you say "like most gunophobes" there is a very clear implication that you think I am a gunophobe.

It is a shame that you lack the courage to answer direct questions, but i am starting to sense that in fact you would subscribe to the fairly basic rule that you should be sure of your target before shooting and I am glad of that because I would be genuinely worried for the safety of the people you claim to have trained if your understanding of gun safety were so poor that you felt it okay to take out a target on someone else's say so.

Can I also gently suggest that while there are plenty of braggers and loud mouths on boards like this, who are quick to make claims of experience and knowledge to support their arguments (and I am sure you are aware that often these claims are exaggeration) there's always a chance that you might be talking about guns with someone who, despite choosing not to brag about it) may be talking from extensive, perhaps even very painful, experience.