U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Dayton
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 08-07-2014, 11:02 AM
 
3,514 posts, read 3,780,583 times
Reputation: 1808

Advertisements

Police shooting people with toy guns at Walmart, the recent high-speed police chase near Salem Mall in Trotwood, Huber Heights Police who perpetually have high-speed chases through heavy traffic.....


Makes me wonder how we put up with this *****+y police enforcement as a region.

Apologies to the many decent policemen and policewomen out there. Trust me, I know a number of amazing individuals who work locally in the field. It's the small minority that disturbs me.

In particular the segment of police out there whom think endangering civilians is a good idea. I don't know if there is anything that can be done about it, but I'm tired of it. I'm a law-abiding citizen, and for the past couple years I've been afraid of police. Not because I do anything illegal (I don't), but because of what the police have the power to do without warrant.

I'm sure others feel the same. In particular those in minority communities. What can be done?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-07-2014, 06:36 PM
 
9,345 posts, read 15,780,146 times
Reputation: 17142
To drive your own agenda, you are trying to make it sound like the cops went in there and blasted some guy with a toy cap gun. Perhaps you missed the fact that it looked like a rifle, that the people he was pointing it at thought it was an actual firearm, and the suspect was ordered to drop it several times and he refused to do so. So the police, thinking it was a rifle like everyone else, shot him. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I have zero problems with that fool being shot. To put people and children through something like that! **** him! What can be done? How about not acting like in fool and in such a manner that will draw a police response? That'd be a good start, but people would have to be responsible for their own actions.

I am in favor of restricted pursuit policies.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2014, 01:29 AM
 
Location: Beavercreek, OH
2,194 posts, read 3,011,892 times
Reputation: 2334
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe from dayton View Post
To drive your own agenda, you are trying to make it sound like the cops went in there and blasted some guy with a toy cap gun. Perhaps you missed the fact that it looked like a rifle, that the people he was pointing it at thought it was an actual firearm, and the suspect was ordered to drop it several times and he refused to do so. So the police, thinking it was a rifle like everyone else, shot him. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I have zero problems with that fool being shot. To put people and children through something like that! **** him! What can be done? How about not acting like in fool and in such a manner that will draw a police response? That'd be a good start, but people would have to be responsible for their own actions.

I am in favor of restricted pursuit policies.
"You must spread some Rep around before giving to joe from dayton again."

I also have zero problems with this guy being shot. He acted way out of line, caused a huge panic irrespective whether the gun was real or a toy. And now I hear that the family is lawyering up. Sadly for the legal profession, there is probably someone who will try to make a racial case out of it. Good on Beavercreek PD for responding quickly and appropriately to the situation.

Anyone care to ask why someone from Fairfield was in Beavercreek's Wal-Mart? There's plenty of Wal-Marts between here and there, and last I checked they all had the same items in stock at every store.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2014, 04:21 AM
 
Location: Springfield, Ohio
11,784 posts, read 9,705,627 times
Reputation: 10783
Maybe he was visiting friends or family....what are you, hood-checkin'? It's an unfortunate incident, and no one except those who were there will truly know what went down.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2014, 05:18 AM
 
3,514 posts, read 3,780,583 times
Reputation: 1808
But they did go in there and kill some guy with a cap gun. That's exactly what happened.

And why did they do it? Why didn't they just taze him? Why did they feel the need to shoot an kill him with hundreds of shoppers in the store?

I will say this incident is especially damning considering gun laws in this state. Many (a lot of policemen included) want looser gun laws, so we have concealed carry. And open carry. And laws that say you can bring your gun into a bar, or a church, and now even into a school is a consideration. What's bizarre is these same people are the ones who shot this guy, for doing something that he was legally able to do even if he had a real gun! (I'm making a reasonable assumption based on Beavercreek's demographics that the majority of officers involved are in favor of looser gun laws).

The depressing fact is he had a TOY gun from the STORE SHELVES! And if I read correctly, he was even in the section of the store WHERE IT WAS STOCKED!

So that makes this issue look like it's about race to me. Would they have shot a guy in the same situaion if he was white or asian? Or if it was a woman? Would they have considered the taser instead? Those are questions the Beavercreek police are going to need to have solid answers for, and fast.

Because the rules need to be the same for everyone. And police need to ensure public safety is their #1 goal. Not some Hollywood style BS.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2014, 05:36 AM
 
3,514 posts, read 3,780,583 times
Reputation: 1808
The above post was a direct response to Joe from Dayton, so sorry about the confusion. I wrote it last night and my internet connection timed out.

Anyways, read through the other posts. Hensleya1, glad to hear his family is lawyering up. This is a case that needs thorough legal analysis. And Nat510, agreed that more needs to be found out about the issue.

If he really was a threat, I still want to know why teasing or another means of taking him down wasn't used. Right now the impression in getting was that he was shot point-blank or sniped.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2014, 07:39 AM
 
9,345 posts, read 15,780,146 times
Reputation: 17142
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHKID View Post
But they did go in there and kill some guy with a cap gun. That's exactly what happened.

And why did they do it? Why didn't they just taze him? Why did they feel the need to shoot an kill him with hundreds of shoppers in the store?

I will say this incident is especially damning considering gun laws in this state. Many (a lot of policemen included) want looser gun laws, so we have concealed carry. And open carry. And laws that say you can bring your gun into a bar, or a church, and now even into a school is a consideration. What's bizarre is these same people are the ones who shot this guy, for doing something that he was legally able to do even if he had a real gun! (I'm making a reasonable assumption based on Beavercreek's demographics that the majority of officers involved are in favor of looser gun laws).

The depressing fact is he had a TOY gun from the STORE SHELVES! And if I read correctly, he was even in the section of the store WHERE IT WAS STOCKED!

So that makes this issue look like it's about race to me. Would they have shot a guy in the same situaion if he was white or asian? Or if it was a woman? Would they have considered the taser instead? Those are questions the Beavercreek police are going to need to have solid answers for, and fast.

Because the rules need to be the same for everyone. And police need to ensure public safety is their #1 goal. Not some Hollywood style BS.
You don't see anything inappropriate about this ass clowns behavior and don't see how he directly contributed to his own death? You expect the police to go into a man with a gun call with a taser in their hand? Something that has a range of 20ish feet or so, and may not work? The taser is not designed or intended to be used as a substitute for a firearm and is an inappropriate tool for this situation. I also expect that the police were looking for a gunman and not checking the shelves and signs to see what area of the store they were in. Oh, and the BB gun section of the store is the same section that sells guns and bullets. People who look for race issues find them no matter what. The police already have solid answers, and fast.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2014, 06:21 AM
 
3,514 posts, read 3,780,583 times
Reputation: 1808
^I agree the victim's actions were inappropriate.

I just don't understand why he wasn't talked down, or tased, or taken down in an alternative manner. I'm not saying the victim was right (waving something around that looks like a gun at a store is not acceptable), but it seems like he could have been taken down by a different method, arrested, and then be put on trial and serve a sentence.

I assume a SWAT team could reach the Walmart very quickly. Don't they have training to take people down without killing them?

Again, this makes me wonder about our gun laws. Right now, if I understand correctly the rules basically sum up to: Open and concealed carry is allowed anywhere unless expressly prohibited by a sign from the property owner or if the property is a school or a couple of other "forbidden places". From my limited legal perspective and understanding of current law, it appears the victim was legally able to do whatever he did, aside from causing a panic.

I'm not saying it was morally correct, but the law is only a strict baseline all must follow, and our own moral judgment outside of the rule of law can build from there. What the law expressly forbids is murder in any form. And the law, if I understand correctly, did not specifically forbid the victim's actions, then he was taken down outside of the reasons of the law. I would assume the victim, if still living, would be prosecuted and tried for causing a panic. I see nothing else illegal about his actions. Anyone willing to question gun laws in this state now?

It also makes me wonder what would have happened if a Caucasian went in and did the same thing. Would the police showed up? Would they have shot him in the torso? I'm especially wondering given the recent political resistance to the RTA bus line. What are the sociological reasons this man was shot? Would a Caucasian man in camouflage or an Asian women been shot if they were acting the same way? Would this man have been shot if he were acting the same at the Dollar General on Salem? Why or why not?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2014, 07:48 AM
 
9,345 posts, read 15,780,146 times
Reputation: 17142
It takes a local SWAT team about an hour to respond. If the suspect shot one of your family members in the head while he was being "talked down" would you sue the police for not acting quickly enough and, by their inaction, allow a loved one to be killed or seriously or permanently injured? No one has an obligation to be shot or shot at in order to talk anyone down.

Of course the law specifically forbid his actions. Look up aggravated menacing. And if you believe someone is going to cause you serious injury or harm, you may respond with deadly force. Again, the law does not require anyone to be shot first before they respond to a perceived deadly force or serious injury threat.

Police are trained to shoot for the torso because it is not only the easiest spot to hit, it is the spot that is most likely to stop the offender's action. Expecting the police to shoot people in the leg or the arm is nothing but foolishness.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2014, 08:56 AM
 
3,514 posts, read 3,780,583 times
Reputation: 1808
^I'm talking rule of law, you're talking emotions.

I looked up aggravated menacing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://codes.ohio.gov
2903.21 [Effective 9/17/2014] Aggravated menacing.
(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family. In addition to any other basis for the other person's belief that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family, the other person's belief may be based on words or conduct of the offender that are directed at or identify a corporation, association, or other organization that employs the other person or to which the other person belongs.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated menacing. Except as otherwise provided in this division, aggravated menacing is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the victim of the offense is an officer or employee of a public children services agency or a private child placing agency and the offense relates to the officer's or employee's performance or anticipated performance of official responsibilities or duties, aggravated menacing is a felony of the fifth degree or, if the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to an offense of violence, the victim of that prior offense was an officer or employee of a public children services agency or private child placing agency, and that prior offense related to the officer's or employee's performance or anticipated performance of official responsibilities or duties, a felony of the fourth degree.

(C) As used in this section, "organization" includes an entity that is a governmental employer.

Amended by 130th General Assembly File No. TBD, HB 129, 1, eff. 9/17/2014.

Effective Date: 04-10-2001

This section is set out twice. See also 2903.21 , effective until 9/17/2014.
It's a first-degree misdemeanor. Max punishment cannot even include a prison sentence. The ultimate sentence in this state is death, and even then death by shooting is illegal.

So' let's lay it out:

Does the law forbid carrying a gun into Walmart? No.
Does the law forbid taking out that gun and pointing it? No.
Does the law forbid manslaughter? Yes.


Again, not all of the facts are in. But from what facts have currently been presented, the officers acted in defiance of the law. That should scare us all.

I'm not saying the law shouldn't be changed. And I'm not talking ethics. I'm just saying if I understand the law correctly, then the police acted outside of it. No one should act outside of the law, that is a judgment statement but our rule of law exists for a reason. It is wise for one to question the law, but not for one to act outside of it.


And yes, if I had a family member that was shot by a madman with a gun, of course I would sue the police, the store, and anyone else whom had a reasonable case against them. I wouldn't necessarily seek monetary damages, but I would seek some form of justice, whether that be prison time, community service, policy changes, whatever. I think the law needs to be changed so people cannot wander into Walmart or other places legally with a gun. Then the guy could have been shot, because having the gun would have meant he was violating the law. And I would 100% stand behind the guy being shot. I just don't think under current law the police acted justifiably, and on a personal level I suspect some of the reasons why were racially driven, whether that be knowingly on the police force's part or from subconscious bias.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Dayton
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top