The vid of the police chief’s press conference is widely available on the web.
I’m a carry advocate but I draw the line at unholstered handguns, or long guns that are not either cased or slung and muzzle-capped. In Minnesota this guy’s actions would probably constitute 5th-degree assault.
I suppose it’s reassuring that the two sources say the same thing, while both exclude so many other, possibly, interesting facts. I would prefer that the police release the 9-1-1 recordings. It would be interesting to hear why the Police Chief decided to roll SWAT. Maybe the Chief could explain why he searched the Walmart after the non-law breakers had already left the store? Should I assume they were looking for bombs?
Perhaps he was Benghazi?
Ben and Shirley Ghazi? Was that the names of the two heavily-armed individuals wandering around Wallyworld? Or where they the people who notified 9-1-1 that Muslim/Christian/athiest terrorists were buying slim jims?
Good question. Have you considered Benghazi?
Of course he was white. A black man would have been shot dead on the spot.
I worked at Walmart several years ago, though, so far as I’m aware, their policies haven’t changed. Any time that I saw someone purchasing rifles or ammo, a member of management would be present for the transaction. Upon completion of the transaction, the manager would always retain physical possession of the rifle until the manager and customer were both out in the parking lot.
Now, I admit that this measure does very little to make the store safer. I mean, the guy could just walk right back in and start shooting. But that was the way that gun sales were handled when I worked there.
Have you considered sea kelp?
My assessment of you, doorhinge, is that you are either:
1- A made up persona trolling this board
2- Someone who will say pretty much anything to further/defend a far right agenda
Maybe I am wrong. I hope that I am wrong. I am interested in your response to this post. Maybe you were busy and didn’t see it. I hope that you don’t respond by stating “we don’t have all the facts”. If you have an actual response I would be intrigued to hear it.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18462556&postcount=73
No. There is only Benghazi.
(post shortened)
Your assessment of me? That seems rather personal, don’t you think? Why would you want to spend your time attacking the other poster rather than attacking the other poster’s arguments?
You neglected to answer the questions put forth in that post. I wonder why???
Right, especially when we should be spending our time Benghazi
[Cyborg from future starts to load shotgun in store]
Gun store clerk: You can’t do that.
Cyborg: Wrong.
…because it’s in the Constitution!..
LOL
John Crawford III in an open carry state who was carrying a toy gun from a Walmart shelf.
Calling someone a troll - even sideways - is against the rules, Robert.
Warning issued, please don’t do so again.
Your “assessment” of your opponent is not relevant to this thread.
Leave the personal remarks (and accusations of trolling) for The BBQ Pit.
= = =
steronz and doorhinge, most of your recent posts have been little more than snide one-liners that are doing nothing to promote the discussion.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
It works if you consider two different definitions of “threatened”.
- “No one was threatened” likely simply means that the gun-toter didn’t actually point the gun at anyone.
- “Evacuating the store and calling the police was warranted” because frankly by the time the guy **does ** choose to point the loaded shotgun at people (if he does so choose - and there’s no way to know whether he will), it’s probably too late to call the police.
So no one was actively threatened but they certainly felt threatened, and with great justification IMHO.