Cheney appears to be a true accident, but being far on the outside I cannot tell if it was impartially investigated or if his political position influenced the process (honestly, its hard to believe that his position did not influence the process). Zimmerman was certainly investigated, politics absolutely drove and biased the investigation against him, his life was ruined. Zimmerman is the opposite extreme of the case of a cop shooting an innocent person. Compare Zimmerman to John Crawford. Zimmerman calls 911, has a prolonged conversation with the 911 operator, apparently gets into a fight with a bigger man who is beating him, suffers injury, and shoots Martin; Zimmerman is then investigated, harassed, the media lies and falsifies video and sound recordings, has to go into hiding, is eventually found not guilty but his life is ruined. With Crawford, a cop sneaks up and shoots him, killing him, the investigation rules conclusively that Crawford was not a threat, was acting completely lawfully, yet the cop (I don't think he was ever identified) was exonerated, no trial and no charges.
You are leaving out facts. Crawford had a gun, witnesses called 911, witnesses claimed Crawford was aiming it at people, Crawford did not drop the gun when instructed by police, and Crawford attempted to leave (with the gun). ... and you're leaving out facts about Zimmerman as well. What you can say about both situations was someone died. Someone else killed him. There was an investigation. In one case there was enough evidence to bring charges. In neither case was enough found for conviction (although DoJ is now conducting an independent investigation).
Um he shot a lawyer. I am pretty sure if it were anything more, the man would have demanded arrest. Also, he admits walking in the line of sight of Cheney.
WRONG. The entire event was captured on WalMart surveillance video. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...DF65AD948AA8055F5605DF65AD948AA80&FORM=VRDGAR Crawford had an air rifle he picked up in WalMart, he was still shopping in Walmart when the cops killed him. Note that open carry is legal in that part of Ohio. Crawford DID NOT aim it at anyone. Watch the video. Crawford did not attempt to leave when confronted by police (he did not have a chance to leave, the cops immediately killed him). Watch the video. Crawford was not even facing the cops when they confronted him, the air rifle was not even close to pointing at a cop. Watch the video. The cops shot Crawford at the same time as they yelled at him to put it down. Cops basically came out, guns up, yelled at Crawford, and killed him within 1 second. There was one 911 caller - Ronald Ritchie. Ritchie lied to the 911 operator. Watch the video. Ritchie later admitted he lied - http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...y-police-walmart-doubts-cast-witnesss-account When Ronald Ritchie called 911 from the aisles of a Walmart in western Ohio last month to report that a black man was walking around with a gun in the store, he said that shoppers were coming under direct threat. Hes, like, pointing it at people, Ritchie told the dispatcher. Later that evening, after John Crawford III had been shot dead by one of the police officers who hurried to the scene in Beavercreek, Ritchie repeated to reporters: He was pointing at people. Children walking by. One month later, Ritchie puts it differently. At no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody, the 24-year-old said, in an interview with the Guardian. He maintained that Crawford was waving it around, which attorneys for Crawfords family deny. Ritchie told several reporters after the 5 August shooting that he was an ex-marine. When confronted with his seven-week service record, however, he confirmed that he had been quickly thrown out of the US marine corps in 2008 after being declared a fraudulent enlistment, over what he maintains was simply a mixup over his paperwork. Crawford, 22, turned out to be holding an unloaded BB air rifle that he had picked up from a store shelf. After Ritchie said Crawford appeared to be trying to load the gun, the 911 dispatcher relayed to an officer that it was believed the gunman just put some bullets inside. The Crawfords attorneys told the Guardian that they had learned the preliminary findings of an autopsy were that he was shot in the back of his left arm and in his left side, supporting their claim that he was turned away from the police officer who shot him.
None of which changes the fact that you are wrong about police officers not being held to a lower standard of review concerning their actions. You have failed to prove otherwise.
Try it this way - He had a BB gun which is sold by Walmart, he was still inside the Walmart, he was in an open carry state. He did absolutely nothing wrong or illegal. Ronald Ritchie called 911, Ritchie blatantly lied. Watch the section of the video in which Ritchie was at the end of the aisle that Crawford was in. Crawford did not point the BB gun at anyone, Crawford was facing the shelves and talking on his phone, Ritchie did not see Crawford point the BB gun at any person or threaten any person. Look at all the other people who were around Crawford as he had the BB gun, nobody was disturbed by Crawford. Crawford never pointed the BB gun at anyone. Watch the video. Because the cops shot him immediately. You can hear it on the voice recordings and see it in the video - the cops jump out, Crawford says "Its not real", the cops shoot him and then tell him to "Get on the Ground", all that happened in an instant. At no point did Crawford point the toy gun at a cop, he was facing the shelves and not the cops. Crawford was shot in the arm and left side. That's just flat wrong. At no point did Crawford attempt to leave the Walmart. Watch the video. The cops murdered an innocent man, and they got away with it.
You didn't see Crawford attempt to leave with the gun, the police report says the cops saw something different than what you saw. You want to differ on that point, fine all yours. Nothing else you have said differed from the official report or what I said. I didn't provide all the details, I did provide a lot more than you originally did (see above). Notice how you didn't even mention the gun in your initial statement? A man got killed. That's bad. But you have offered nothing that demonstrates murder. Or that demonstrates those particular officers were held to a lesser standard. Or that cops in general are held to a lesser standard. You just don't like cops. Same as other folks don't like blacks. You have a right to your prejudice, ugly as it is.
You did not watch the video. The video covers almost every moment Crawford was in the store, and it covers every second from the point that Ritchie saw Crawford until the cops murdered him. My initial statement was a brief summary of Crawfords homicide, just as I stated. I incorrectly assumed that you would do due diligence and watch the referenced video. Guess its too much to think people who blindly support abusive and murderous cops are interested in the Truth.
You didn't reference a video in your initial post. Or mention the gun. You made some reckless assertions and assumptions ... and they were wrong. It's unfortunate that Crawford was killed. Crawford wasn't murdered. I'm starting to think you don't know what that word means. You're upset. You don't like cops. That doesn't mean your declaration means someone is guilty of a crime.
Clearly you are not reading the posts. From the first post: You have been totally incorrect in all your posts. Since you don't read the posts, its a safe assumption that you don't read the outside sources either.
I was referring to this post. But you are correct that you did mention the video in an earlier post and that I didn't read that earlier post (or most of your posts).
Thanks. I have to give you credit for being honest, many would not be so forthcoming. My attitude towards you has changed, I hope I did not offend you in my posts, if I did I apologize.
A police officer is legally able to shoot someone in the back as they are fleeing the scene, and claim that they were in fear of their life in order to justify the use of deadly force. A private citizen acting in their own defense cannot use deadly force in such circumstances, and would be tried for murder if they did.
Kinda weird this morning. I was getting things ready so I could wander off on my day off. I idly had this little vision/fantasy that there were cops outside, and laughed at it. I left my apartment carrying 2 cased AR-15's and a cased Glock pistol. As I got to the parking lot, I saw a patrol car, and 2 bicycle cops, hanging around and talking, about 75 feet from my car! They LOOKED AT ME as I went to put the rifles in the back, and the pistol up front. I just carried on, as if there was no-one at all around. Started up the car and let it idle for a minute. As I pulled out, I would have passed by them if I had turned right. I turned left and drove off, just like a normal guy. Nothing happened. Cops know what rifle cases look like. The moral to this little story is that ANYONE who conducts himself like a decent human being will find that cops were already doing other things, and feel no need to "do" you. Thanks for your time.
could this be another reason: Please Dont Shoot Me Unarmed Father Begs Before Police Kill Him An unarmed young father of two was shot five times by a police officer in Mesa, Arizona, after begging Please dont shoot me. Now his widow is fighting the system to try to keep her husbands murderer from walking free. Police invaded Daniel Shavers hotel room after receiving a phone call that somebody was pointing a rifle out the window, according to local affiliate KTAR. The rifle wound up being two pellet rifles, which the police later determined were related to his pest control job. Police forced Shaver and his acquaintance to crawl out from the room. Shaver reached towards his waistline, possibly to pull up his shorts, when Officer Philip Brailsford gunned him down with his own personal AR-15 assault rifle, which was inscribed with the phrase Youre f***ed, according to Tucson News. That statement tells me this is a person whos enthusiastic about killing people, Marc Victor, the lawyer for Laney Sweet, Daniels widow, and her late husband, argued. Thats what that inscription means. Shaver was only 26 years old, and leaves behind two daughters. Brailsford has been fired and is pleading not guilty to second degree murder. However, county attorney Bill Montgomery has said that they are considering a plea deal. At most, he would likely serve three years and nine months with a possibility for probation. Sweet is outraged by the plea deal and the countys refusal to release the body camera evidence to the public. In a video she uploaded to Youtube, county officials refuse to show her the footage of her husbands death unless she agrees to never publicly describe the contents of the footage, for fear that public access to the footage would unfairly affect the outcome of a trial. Prosecutor Susie Charnel can be heard on the recording telling Sweet that Mr. Montgomery, and Im not just saying this because hes my boss, but you know, I think hes extending you a lot of courtesies, you know and um and by having you go ahead and see something this difficult because it was difficult for us to watch and you know, were professionals, and were not related to him. Thats why its very important that we all understand that this can not go outside of this room media-wise. It would impact negatively on the trial. Sweet also said that she had not been notified of her husbands death, but had called every hospital and police station after she hadnt heard back from him for two days, until she finally reached the coroners office. Sweets recording can be heard here: {see video at link} An Arizona judge has declined to publicly the release the body cam footage as of this writing. more .....
Mesa, Arizona cops have a bad reputation when it comes to them shooting first and asking questions later.
It is a reputation shared by nearly all police officers. There is a significant lack of impulse control on their part.
