Originally Posted by
SOW_0331
So...I know I lack reading comprehension, or so I've been told...but I have a few issues with the bolded here.
1. No idea he was on the phone? The gun was in the non-phone-holding hand and oriented to the deck. That would put the (insert name for idiot that deserved to die apparently) guy standing in a slightly side-view version of the international symbol of "I'm on the phone". But supposing that wasn't obvious at the time of arrival, I would be watching hands and looking to see what his stance reveals about his hand that's out of view. Head down, shoulders arched, no sign of forearm or elbow from the side profile, all indicators of his hand being at his head. Sounds difficult but anyone who is put in the position to fire the first round should know/have been trained how to spot this. And if the statement is to support firing for non-compliance...well shit man I oughta update my will because I can't hear a damn thing. No aggressive action, but ignoring my compliance demands...death sentence. Noted.
2. This comment about the time between command and shots is, in my opinion, very telling. If this is what the non-shooter was willing to say about his partner in a statement, it sounds like he knows old boy jumped the gun and wants to distance himself from the decision to fire without bluntly ratting out the trigger pulling infidel. If Sgt. Darkow had felt that the shoot was justified and necessary, there are a whole lot of ways to convey that. This ain't it.
3. A pretty liberal definition of "aggressive" there stud, it must be terrifying when every human interaction...sorry, "civilian contact"...is taken as an aggressive attack. Before and after the trigger was pulled, Crawford never made such a move. Not by my definition. So if we were to eliminate EVERYTHING before and after, the bullshit 911 call and the gunfight mindset, we're looking at about six seconds or less of interaction. In that time, no aggressive action was made by Crawford. To state anything different is a flat out lie. Remember that goofy old saying "hostile act, hostile intent"? Even if hostile intent was assumed based on the information given, you still don't get to shoot. It's not one or the other, both have to occur. Why Operator Williams couldn't observe for a second or two, I don't know, because he certainly wasn't anywhere close to being engaged.
4. No planning or discussion? Shit these dudes are on a whole new level of tactical. Going into an unknown structure, unknown location of shooter, unknown victim assistance they might come across, not even knowing if shots had actually been fired. What a fantastic time to skip that whole silly communication thing. They probably already knew who would take point and comm spots. Probably already knew who was better at TACMED and the plan to assess or treat, cover, communicate to EMS. I mean SOF units do a lot of that fluid movement stuff but it's also a tedious and redundant period of dry runs and rehearsals, rock talks, intel reviews, etc. and even after all that, we were such amateurs we actually encouraged communication! I hope Operator Williams opens up a training school, I need to learn how to "Tactically Wing It".
These statements still don't point to malicious intent by either officers, and I have never suggested either of them were bloodthirsty. It does seem more and more clear that fear, and a police culture of using the highest level of force available to gain compliance, mixed together into the tragic scenario of the wrong man for the job being put in a position he wasn't ready for. That's unfortunate, it happens. I've seen some real studs mess up or freeze in some intense close quarters fighting. They usually weren't brought back out into those environments if it was a real fudge. But there was no two way contact in that Walmart. A scared officer reacted out of fear and someone died. What I do find concerning is the insistence that we can't ask for integrity in the investigation of the actions of a public servant in determining if he should be allowed to continue a job that might put him in the same position again. I have yet to see anyone here calling for a hanging in the town square of Williams, but it's not "Anti-LEO" to want to see some effort put into a competency or performance review.
Senior Member
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks