Black Man Gunned Down By Police In Ohio Walmart While Shopping For Air Gun

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,480
9,702
136
The police did nothing but follow proper procedure. You don't form policy and follow through protocol with the assumption you are dealing with innocent people. They have to be prepared to deal with people with guns, ready to shoot.

On that note, I want to clarify something people seem to be missing.

The video is clear to me, I stand by anyone opening fire in that scenario as I've seen it. That does NOT mean I'm happy it happened. An innocent man was killed and we need policy to prevent that from happening. We need to reduce violent confrontations. I'm pleased to note that as robots become advanced, they will be able to approach suspects without the need for deadly force.

It's just a matter of time until tragedies like this are mostly adverted. If anyone has a more immediate suggestion for policy change, I'd like to hear it. We should be discussing the merits of those ideas.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
If we get some kind of instantaneous, non lethal way to render suspects unconscious, deadly force would be averted entirely. It would still place officers in harms way, but it would lessen their "incidents" and stuff like this. They shoot an innocent, they are only out for like half an hour. No harm, no foul.
 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
I haven't seen video backing up Ritchie's claim, nor have I seen it refuting it.

And the police did not act overly hastily. He was bring the weapon upwards, towards the officers when they confronted him.

Watch the video again. Crawford was swinging the rifle back-and forth towards/near shelves, not police. Notice how only after being shot did he quickly crawl around that corner and confront police and state "it's not real." Then he ran back to the scene and immediately confronted the actual shooter, or the LEO observing him for those brief two seconds.

The police obviously lacked restraint, observational skills and never properly identified themselves; therefore they have proven themselves (in a very real-world situation) unfit to be law enforcement officials... at the very least.
 
Last edited:

master_shake_

Diamond Member
May 22, 2012
6,425
292
121
The video shows him pick up the gun and wave it at shelves not one person was in his sight.

Guy calls 911 man is killed on the scene the cops didn't even announce who they were or tell him to drop his weapon.

Cops did murder him in cold blood.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
He was swinging it back and forth the entire time. It was on the upswing as they turned the corner. That means the barrel is being raised up as they pulled the trigger.



Any healthy person could have drilled those cops in a second from the position he was in.

Just keep inventing shit to justify your position on this. It wasn't pointing anywhere near the police.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,480
9,702
136
Just keep inventing shit to justify your position on this. It wasn't pointing anywhere near the police.

No invention. It was being raised. Period.

Cops must assume the next motion would be a turn to the left and pulling the trigger. They don't have to wait until they're dead to defend themselves. They don't have to wait until a gun is in their face. They simply have to identify the threat and, maybe, if there's risk in its motion.

You move too fast, they shoot.
You turn around to see who is shouting at you, they shoot.
You swing a "gun" in Walmart, they shoot.

This is standard policy. How would you like to see it changed?
 

Remobz

Platinum Member
Jun 9, 2005
2,564
37
91
No invention. It was being raised. Period.

Cops must assume the next motion would be a turn to the left and pulling the trigger. They don't have to wait until they're dead to defend themselves. They don't have to wait until a gun is in their face. They simply have to identify the threat and, maybe, if there's risk in its motion.

You move too fast, they shoot.
You turn around to see who is shouting at you, they shoot.
You swing a "gun" in Walmart, they shoot.

This is standard policy. How would you like to see it changed?

Thinking about it now. That Mr. Ritchie (ex marine) guy is the real cause here. He should never of made that call. Blood is on his hands.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
If you're coming around a corner and see that scenario... why the hell wouldn't you shoot?

1: They have to assume it's a real gun.

Agreed.

2: Barrel was being swung up, as if readying to aim.

I don't see it that way. However, I have an old crappy CRT with low-rez. So I may not be seeing as clearly as you.

Looks to me like the lead officer had him in his gun sights and needn't have shot so fast. What I see is someone (police) who is convinced (likely from the BS 911 call) that the victim is certainly a killer and approached in that manner. I see no effort to analyze the situation/person; rather just 'seek & destroy'.

3: His back was not facing them, they had a side profile.

True, and allowing for additional time no matter how brief.

They did it quickly, but if the scenario was real the cops were less than a second from being shot. They have no choice but to open fire.

IMO they did have an choice but were not open at all to any but the mission to destroy a guaranteed threat. They were extremely prejudiced, and I don't mean in a racial manner.

I would also like to say that the mission of the police is to 'serve and protect', not 'kill anything that may (or may not) pose a threat to me'. I.e., not to shoot first and ask questions later.

Fern
 
Last edited:

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
No invention. It was being raised. Period.

Cops must assume the next motion would be a turn to the left and pulling the trigger. They don't have to wait until they're dead to defend themselves. They don't have to wait until a gun is in their face. They simply have to identify the threat and, maybe, if there's risk in its motion.

You move too fast, they shoot.
You turn around to see who is shouting at you, they shoot.
You swing a "gun" in Walmart, they shoot.

This is standard policy. How would you like to see it changed?

How about maybe waiting another couple of seconds to see if the person they are about to murder is aware of their existence? Or actually pointing a gun at them. Or doing anything but talking on a phone.

How about they do a lot less fucking assuming that because its a black person, they need to open fire first, and worry about details later? If your standard policy is to shoot first, figure out details later, then they don't deserve to be police. But thankfully their are ignorant hero worshipers like you out there that congratulate cops on doing something like, ensuring it will continue to happen.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
The video shows him pick up the gun and wave it at shelves not one person was in his sight.

Guy calls 911 man is killed on the scene the cops didn't even announce who they were or tell him to drop his weapon.

Cops did murder him in cold blood.

Who was he talking to when he said "It's not real"?

Seems like that must have been in response to a cop's order to drop the weapon?
 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
Who was he talking to when he said "It's not real"?

Seems like that must have been in response to a cop's order to drop the weapon?

John Crawford barely finished stating "it's not real" before taking fire. You can hear this response on the 911 calls, if you listen extremely closely. This was corroborated by Crawford's girlfriend who at the time were both engaged in a phone conversation.

8:26:52-3 Police acquire target.
8:26:55:10 Police say "get down."
8:26:56:15 Crawford says "it's not real."
8:26:56:20 Police open fire on target.

I guess it was said in reaction to whomever he thought said, "get down." That's all we know, as police never identified themselves. Police never even fully assessed or secured the scene to eliminate collateral damage... if we're being honest.

I also believe the Ohio AG didn't want surveillance footage released because it would create greater national interest and scrutiny. For instance, it has now been revealed that Officer Williams was also involved in a deadly shooting in 2010.

More new information: apparently toxicology reports indicate Mr. Williams had smoked marijuana within a few hours prior to the shooting.

I also just read in the UK Guardian, the Crawford family will be seeking action against Ronald Ritchie for making the initial 911 call. The public outcry for this has been tremendous.

'It was a crank call': family seeks action against 911 caller in Walmart shooting
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/walmart-ohio-shooting-charges-911-calller-john-crawford

“He (Ronald Ritchie) was the catalyst, if you will, in the whole sequence of events leading up to my son’s death,” John Crawford Jr told the Guardian. “It was a crank call. He excited the call, and exaggerated the call, and frankly it was just a bunch of lies.”

Ritchie declined to comment in an online message on Friday. He has previously maintained that Crawford posed a threat to shoppers and that the 911 call was justified.

Special prosecutor Mark Piepmeier stressed on Wednesday that the responding police officers were led to understand that Crawford was an active threat. One even called back to the dispatcher to check that the 911 caller said Crawford was pointing the rifle at people. “If he’s not there, we may not be here,” Piepmeier said of Ritchie at a press conference.

Michael Wright, the attorney for the Crawford family, said Ritchie “should be questioned on why the footage and what he said does not match”. Wright said: “He’s basically lying with the dispatchers, he’s making up the story. So should he be prosecuted? Yes, I believe so.”

Ritchie had said of Crawford near the start of his 911 call: “He’s, like, pointing it at people.” He subsequently told the Guardian that “at no point did [Crawford] shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody”, stressing instead that he had been “waving it around” and that the muzzle moved in the direction of other shoppers.

The surveillance footage released on Wednesday shows Crawford passing shoppers with the gun at his side. After arriving in a corner of the store, he is seen swinging the rifle at his side and holding it towards a store shelf containing pet products while standing alone and talking on his cellphone for five minutes.

The children who Ritchie appeared to claim were under threat from Crawford were in the store with their mother, Angela Williams. Williams, 37, died of a heart attack in the panic that ensued among customers following the police shooting. “I hope that he’s happy with himself,” her teenage son said of Ritchie in a Facebook post earlier this month.

Ritchie also told several reporters after the shooting that he was an “ex-marine”. The Guardian disclosed last month that he was thrown out after seven weeks in 2008, after being declared a “fraudulent enlistment”. He states that the problem was a mix-up in his paperwork.

In January 2012, Ritchie pleaded guilty in the Montgomery County municipal court to theft. All records of the incident have been expunged by the court and the Huber Heights police department. In 2010 he was fined $250 and given a year’s probation after being convicted by Miamisburg municipal court of possession of drug paraphernalia.

Ritchie and his wife, April, have not spoken publicly since his Guardian interview. Both have changed their names on social media. The day before he called 911 about Crawford, Ritchie posted a meme on his Facebook page featuring the comedian Gabriel Iglesias. “Me, racist? The only race I hate is the one you have to run,” it read. The post has since been removed.

One month later, Ritchie shared with his friends a story from the Tea Party News Network about a group of black men assaulting a white couple in Missouri. The story condemned President Barack Obama and Eric Holder, the attorney general, for ignoring the attack after speaking publicly about the killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, in Ferguson, Missouri, last month. It described them as “race hustlers”.

April Ritchie told reporters following the Walmart shooting that she had warned other shoppers to avoid Crawford in the store. When the Guardian requested an interview with April Ritchie via social media, she replied in a message that she was not April Ritchie. After being reminded that she was, she threatened to “contact the police and file harassment charges”.
 
Last edited:

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
He was swinging it back and forth the entire time. It was on the upswing as they turned the corner. That means the barrel is being raised up as they pulled the trigger.



Any healthy person could have drilled those cops in a second from the position he was in.

Being raised to whom? The cops came from the guys left side, and the gun was at never pointed at the officer. The Guy was shot on his left side in the elbow and side torso. Was the cop assuming there was someone that the gun was going to eventually get raised to in front of him?
 

positivedoppler

Golden Member
Apr 30, 2012
1,145
237
116
No invention. It was being raised. Period.

Cops must assume the next motion would be a turn to the left and pulling the trigger. They don't have to wait until they're dead to defend themselves. They don't have to wait until a gun is in their face. They simply have to identify the threat and, maybe, if there's risk in its motion.

You move too fast, they shoot.
You turn around to see who is shouting at you, they shoot.
You swing a "gun" in Walmart, they shoot.

This is standard policy. How would you like to see it changed?

It wasn't being raised. Period. The police had no business pulling that shit in Walmart. There is absolutely no justifying that given the video no matter how much you try to defend them. I absolutely don't know what you are seeing there that nobody else is seeing. Not sure if you see something nobody else sees or if you are just a very heavily pro everything police stand or just trying to troll everyone. One day if ever those police action are aimed at you or somebody you care about, I'm sure you'll change your tune quickly.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,480
9,702
136
It wasn't being raised. Period.

You cannot hide from the video. Why would you say this. Do we have different definitions of raising the barrel? I'll show you mine.

Before: 08:26:56:01
After : 08:26:56:13

After he raised the "gun", he was shot.

Are officers not trained to do this, is this not standard policy? Of course it is. They don't want to die and they are required to assume it's a real gun. They did not know intent, but when the barrel was raised they did not have time to ask why.

atanEq4.png
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,375
16,766
136
You cannot hide from the video. Why would you say this. Do we have different definitions of raising the barrel? I'll show you mine.

Before: 08:26:56:01
After : 08:26:56:13

After he raised the "gun", he was shot.

Are officers not trained to do this, is this not standard policy? Of course it is. They don't want to die and they are required to assume it's a real gun. They did not know intent, but when the barrel was raised they did not have time to ask why.


Can you explain how one would shoot a gun one handed and with that one hand on the butt of the rifle?
I get it, you scare easily so a black guy with a "gun" would send you into panic mode, cops however aren't supposed to be little bitches though, they are trained to assess a situation and to act calm. That didn't happen.
 

positivedoppler

Golden Member
Apr 30, 2012
1,145
237
116
You cannot hide from the video. Why would you say this. Do we have different definitions of raising the barrel? I'll show you mine.

Before: 08:26:56:01
After : 08:26:56:13

After he raised the "gun", he was shot.

Are officers not trained to do this, is this not standard policy? Of course it is. They don't want to die and they are required to assume it's a real gun. They did not know intent, but when the barrel was raised they did not have time to ask why.

You are clearly trolling. He was standing there chatting on the cell phone very slightly swinging the toy gun back and forth the entire time. You take a still of when the swing gun was at it's highest and on its way back down to justify the morons and absolute pussies we put in uniforms now a days.

The job of a police officer is to serve and protect. In exchange for enjoying immunities from law the rest of us US citizens have to obey by, officers are expected to put their lives in more danger than the rest of us to protect the peace. Instead we have a bunch of pussies defended by people like you who are trigger happy from fear of their job and are willing to put any nearby civilian's lives on the line so that they "can go home to their families at night"

Translation of a coward cop these days. Their lives are more important than yours, so naturally they are going to pull the trigger if anything from their surrounding is perceived as a threat.
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,480
9,702
136
Can you explain how one would shoot a gun one handed and with that one hand on the butt of the rifle?

Can you explain to me that they clearly saw and recognized the situation for what it was, in the few seconds they had? The silhouette is the most defining characteristic, you'll pick up on that first. Any understanding that'd come after was too late to stop the shooting.

I get it, you scare easily so a black guy with a "gun" would send you into panic mode, cops however aren't supposed to be little bitches though, they are trained to assess a situation and to act calm. That didn't happen.

All that shit, but you still can't tell me that they aren't supposed to shoot when a gun is being raised. You know they are supposed to.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
He apparently had enough time to hear and respond to a command to drop the rifle, since he said "It's not real" to the cops.

Maybe he should have dropped the rifle instead of trying to explain that it was not real?

Pretty sure he was already shot by then, not exactly "enough time" in my book but that's just me.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,480
9,702
136
You are clearly trolling.

I have objectively quantified my definition of raising the barrel. I have shown what I see on that video, as the basis for why I would not hesitate in such a situation.

You are free to disagree on the meaning of that barrel being raised.

He was standing there chatting on the cell phone very slightly swinging the toy gun back and forth the entire time. You take a still of when the swing gun was at it's highest and on its way back down to justify the morons and absolute pussies we put in uniforms now a days.

It being on the upswing was exactly my point. I've stated that previously on this thread. Thing is, we're looking at this situation after the fact, with 20/20. We get to replay the video over and over until we're certain we know what happened. The officers rounded the corner and had a few seconds. In those seconds the barrel was raised.

You can go back and replay it. You can see what he was doing before they turned that corner. You have all the time in the world to condemn them for their perfectly normal reaction of pulling the trigger when a "gun" is raised.

The job of a police officer is to serve and protect. In exchange for enjoying immunities from law the rest of us US citizens have to obey by, officers are expected to put their lives in more danger than the rest of us to protect the peace. Instead we have a bunch of pussies defended by people like you who are trigger happy from fear of their job and are willing to put any nearby civilian's lives on the line so that they "can go home to their families at night"

Translation of a coward cop these days. Their lives are more important than yours, so naturally they are going to pull the trigger if anything from their surrounding is perceived as a threat.

I have always stood for police not initiating violent confrontations. I have watched with horror, time and again, as it is their standard policy across this nation to escalate the use of force against all people, innocent or not. I am appalled by their standard policy of home invasions where they expressly kill pets or anyone defending their home. I want such aggression avoided.

I have always demanded that they properly identify themselves and give a person time to recognize and surrender. Yet such care for other people's lives would be a policy change. As it stands now they are trained and expected to shoot first and ask questions later when they feel threatened. They are trained and expected to control a situation and escalate force.

It's their policy that is wrong, but within the confines of how it is today these officers did nothing wrong. I would have that changed. I would spend our energy focused on how to prevent such tragedies in the future. To expressly prevent them from on sneaking up on and killing people.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,375
16,766
136
Can you explain to me that they clearly saw and recognized the situation for what it was, in the few seconds they had? The silhouette is the most defining characteristic, you'll pick up on that first. Any understanding that'd come after was too late to stop the shooting.



All that shit, but you still can't tell me that they aren't supposed to shoot when a gun is being raised. You know they are supposed to.

Oops! You didn't bother answering my question;)


The police were able to see the gun being raised but they were unable to see that it was being raised with one hand on the butt of the rifle? They also didn't have a couple of seconds, they fired almost immediately, which is the problem and my point, they didn't accurately assess the situation. Thanks for highlighting that failure;)