decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by M-Quigley »

http://www.whio.com/news/crime--law/fed ... Aj5PowMXI/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Only took them 3 years to decide there was insufficient proof to charge the officer with violating Crawford's civil rights. A interesting opinion by a law professor in the article involving what constitutes violating someone's civil rights are in a shooting case, not just whether a particular LEO shot for some racially motivated reason.
Investigators said they focused on if they could prove Officer Williams willfully denied Crawford of a constitutional right.

“To establish willfulness, federal authorities would be required to show that the officer acted with the deliberate and specific intent to do something the law forbids. This is one of the highest standards of intent imposed by law,” the federal statement read. “Mistake, misperception, negligence, necessity, or poor judgment are not sufficient to establish a federal criminal civil rights violation.”
University of Dayton law professor Thomas Hagel disagreed with the DOJ’s conclusion. He said the case should have hinged on whether it was “necessary” to kill Crawford in that situation.

“Frankly, I don’t believe it was,” he said.

He also said someone acting negligently would be sufficient to prove their actions unreasonable.

“There is more than enough facts here to justify putting this before a jury,” Hagel said.
In addition, the lawyer for the Crawford family is saying now that Sessions is the AG, there will be less investigations of civil rights violations. :roll:
Wright met with DOJ officials in the fall, but he said the length of the investigation and the appointment of Jeff Sessions as U.S. attorney general eroded his hopes that the DOJ would seek charges.

“Going from Loretta Lynch to Jeff Sessions will significantly decrease the amount of civil rights cases that will be brought by the office,” he said. “This will not be a priority for the administration.”
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by bignflnut »

M-Quigley wrote:http://www.whio.com/news/crime--law/fed ... Aj5PowMXI/
Investigators said they focused on if they could prove Officer Williams willfully denied Crawford of a constitutional right.

“To establish willfulness, federal authorities would be required to show that the officer acted with the deliberate and specific intent to do something the law forbids. This is one of the highest standards of intent imposed by law,” the federal statement read. “Mistake, misperception, negligence, necessity, or poor judgment are not sufficient to establish a federal criminal civil rights violation.”
The only scenario where we use this high standard of intent is when we wish to protect a suspect from further legal scrutiny. We're ring anyone else up for simple statements made on social media or vague inference.

Again, if TPTB wish to give the impression that justice is not blind, but considers one's station in life (#Hero) and who cuts the check for that profession, the mundanes of the citizenry may perceive that justice can only be achieved by coloring outside the lines of a corrupt system. This is negative for society as a whole.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by Brian D. »

I still think the one caller to 911 has some share of responsibility for this death. Actually, two deaths; a panicking shopper fleeing from the store had a fatal heart attack outside.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by qmti »

The Justice department has found no fault on the officers part. Period. Protesters can claim injustice but facts are facts. But it's now all about the money. The lawyers see how much other cities have payed out (like Cleveland) and push the issue for a paycheck. They keep the family pumped up for the money.
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by qmti »

qmti wrote:The Justice department has found no fault on the officers part. Period. Protesters can claim injustice but facts are facts. But it's now all about the money. The lawyers see how much other cities have payed out (like Cleveland) and push the issue for a paycheck. They keep the family pumped up for the money.
Follow up: watched channel 7 new last night and they had a group of civil rights advocates on and they blamed the Trump justice department for the non-indictment of the officers. Gee, Trump has been in office just 6 months of the three years they had it. The Obama justice department had the case for two and a half years. But of course they wouldn't blame Obama for the non-indictment.
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by bignflnut »

qmti wrote:The Justice department has found no fault on the officers part. Period. Protesters can claim injustice but facts are facts. But it's now all about the money. The lawyers see how much other cities have payed out (like Cleveland) and push the issue for a paycheck. They keep the family pumped up for the money.
It's funny, you seem to be saying in the first statement that protesters can claim injustice but they're wrong, even though the system is fully corrupted by monetary considerations (which in this case would negatively impact the State/PD). Are you saying that they're only motivated to claim injustice for monetary gain (as though the protesters would somehow financially benefit)?

Is this the "ghetto lottery" argument? Certainly you're not claiming that the family or the deceased went looking for this outcome to benefit financially, right?
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by M-Quigley »

qmti wrote:The Justice department has found no fault on the officers part. Period. Protesters can claim injustice but facts are facts. But it's now all about the money. The lawyers see how much other cities have payed out (like Cleveland) and push the issue for a paycheck. They keep the family pumped up for the money.
Well, not exactly. Again, the quote from the article:
Investigators said they focused on if they could prove Officer Williams willfully denied Crawford of a constitutional right.

“To establish willfulness, federal authorities would be required to show that the officer acted with the deliberate and specific intent to do something the law forbids. This is one of the highest standards of intent imposed by law,” the federal statement read. “Mistake, misperception, negligence, necessity, or poor judgment are not sufficient to establish a federal criminal civil rights violation.”
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by qmti »

bignflnut wrote:
qmti wrote:The Justice department has found no fault on the officers part. Period. Protesters can claim injustice but facts are facts. But it's now all about the money. The lawyers see how much other cities have payed out (like Cleveland) and push the issue for a paycheck. They keep the family pumped up for the money.
It's funny, you seem to be saying in the first statement that protesters can claim injustice but they're wrong, even though the system is fully corrupted by monetary considerations (which in this case would negatively impact the State/PD). Are you saying that they're only motivated to claim injustice for monetary gain (as though the protesters would somehow financially benefit)?

Is this the "ghetto lottery" argument? Certainly you're not claiming that the family or the deceased went looking for this outcome to benefit financially, right?
I think your are over analyzing my post. Simply put:
*Crawford made a poor choice of picking up the gun and walking around the store with it
*Prosecutors have filed no criminal charges against the responding officers
*Justice department found insufficient cause to file a civil rights violation against the officers
*Civil rights activates are unhappy with the Justice department findings
*Lawyers have filed multiple civil lawsuits against the officers, government entities, and retailer
*If family wins any civil suit they will become the next Ohio's multi millionaires
Now, tell me were I'm going wrong here.
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH
Contact:

Re: decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by WY_Not »

No, he picked up a toy. And we all know that is SOOOOOO deserving of being shot on sight. :roll:
Here's hoping the family owns the LEO and the caller.
qmti wrote: I think your are over analyzing my post. Simply put:
*Crawford made a poor choice of picking up the gun and walking around the store with it
*Prosecutors have filed no criminal charges against the responding officers
*Justice department found insufficient cause to file a civil rights violation against the officers
*Civil rights activates are unhappy with the Justice department findings
*Lawyers have filed multiple civil lawsuits against the officers, government entities, and retailer
*If family wins any civil suit they will become the next Ohio's multi millionaires
Now, tell me were I'm going wrong here.
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by bignflnut »

qmti wrote: I think your are over analyzing my post. Simply put:

*Prosecutors have filed no criminal charges against the responding officers
*Justice department found insufficient cause to file a civil rights violation against the officers
*Civil rights activates are unhappy with the Justice department findings
*Lawyers have filed multiple civil lawsuits against the officers, government entities, and retailer
*If family wins any civil suit they will become the next Ohio's multi millionaires
Now, tell me were I'm going wrong here.
So, I only removed one (Singular) of your "facts" in this pattern.
If this is the fact pattern, does it determine that justice was done?
Can we envision any other scenario where this fact pattern may apply, but it was the wrong outcome?
Do these "facts" have any bearing at all on the innocence of the deceased?

Let's return to the omitted "fact"
*Crawford made a poor choice of picking up the gun and walking around the store with it
Yup. Poor choice. I will stipulate.
The question really is, "Did he deserve to die"?
Will we excuse the execution of all who make poor choices?
Can we envision a scenario where an innocent person is publicly destroyed and the officer/department should be punished?

Should we be surprised that there aren't going to be charges? Nah.
Should we be outraged by the outrage? Nah. It's not at our door yet, we don't do stupid things. Right? (Stupid Games Argument!)

Be sure to trot out "the community's response is the problem" trope.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by qmti »

WY_Not wrote:No, he picked up a toy. And we all know that is SOOOOOO deserving of being shot on sight. :roll:
Here's hoping the family owns the LEO and the caller.
qmti wrote: I think your are over analyzing my post. Simply put:
*Crawford made a poor choice of picking up the gun and walking around the store with it
*Prosecutors have filed no criminal charges against the responding officers
*Justice department found insufficient cause to file a civil rights violation against the officers
*Civil rights activates are unhappy with the Justice department findings
*Lawyers have filed multiple civil lawsuits against the officers, government entities, and retailer
*If family wins any civil suit they will become the next Ohio's multi millionaires
Now, tell me were I'm going wrong here.
SOOOOO your would support a LEO giving a Shout Out "Hey, is that a real gun or a toy" as he is approaching a man with a gun in his hands. Gotta be in the real world.
And here's hoping that the family gets not a dime from the officers or government entities. I concur with you on the caller. His dialog with the 911 operator escalated the situation. And the retailer was negligent for not keeping the item in it's packaging. After all, none of this would have transpired if the gun was in it's box.
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH
Contact:

Re: decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by WY_Not »

Would certainly be much safer for the people the LEO's are supposed to be serving and protecting. This was not a hostage situation where the victim was actively threatening anyone, much less the LEO. This was a man talking on the phone and threatening NO ONE. Heaven forbid the LEO at least try to assess the situation before opening fire.
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by qmti »

WY_Not wrote:Would certainly be much safer for the people the LEO's are supposed to be serving and protecting. This was not a hostage situation where the victim was actively threatening anyone, much less the LEO. This was a man talking on the phone and threatening NO ONE. Heaven forbid the LEO at least try to assess the situation before opening fire.
I will concede to that opinion. That's why we have these debates. To express each others view points. :D
User avatar
xxxamishxxx
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:58 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
Contact:

Re: decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by xxxamishxxx »

I have gone back and forth on this. I honestly think this man didnt not deserve to die and from what I have rad and seen, the police could have dealt with this differently, but put yourself in police shoes. Its easy to Monday morning quarter back. they are only responding to what they are told. That there was a man waving a gun around. Its a shame a man that was minding his own business and doing nothing wrong was shot and killed. So who should we blame, the office given bad info or the store or the caller giving the bad info. Personally I blame the caller and not to police
Accurate Concepts Training, LLC
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
Punishers Law Enforcement Motorcycle Club
Javelin Man
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 7481
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Sandusky County

Re: decision in Beavercreek Crawford shooting case released

Post by Javelin Man »

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail. Too many police think they have to shoot first for "their safety". What if we thought the same?
Famous last words: "I just drank What?!-Socrates

bruh bruh is slang for "complete and total moron" -sodbuster95

The following is a list of children's books that didn't quite make it to the printing press...
1. What Is That Dog Doing to That Other Dog?
2. Daddy Drinks Because You Cry
3. You Were An Accident
4. Bi-Curious George
Post Reply