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

[ivwshane]

Great, maybe you should be a cop and I shouldn't. Cause if I turned that corner and saw the barrel of a rifle moving up - I would not hesitate. 1-2 seconds means your own death in a real scenario.

The video makes it clear for me to judge, I'd be afraid of that weapon in that moment.

Well, yeah, most bitches scare easily

 

[CitizenKain]

Great, maybe you should be a cop and I shouldn't. Cause if I turned that corner and saw the barrel of a rifle moving up - I would not hesitate. 1-2 seconds means your own death in a real scenario.

The video makes it clear for me to judge, I'd be afraid of that weapon in that moment.

So you think this person is going to go from not facing police and unaware of their presence to leveling a rifle on them and firing in the space of a second? Are you aware that action movies are fake?

 

[LTC8K6]

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?

 

[LTC8K6]

All right you jackass, how about shooting this kid then? Good shoot or wrong color? I can literally find thousands of photos like this..... all WHITE people openly carrying with their itchy fingers on the fucking trigger.

http://www.fwweekly.com/2014/04/17/viral-photo-of-kids-with-guns-not-all-it-seems/

Viral Photo Of Kids With Guns Not All It Seems

 

[master_shake_]

Well, yeah, most bitches scare easily

 

[Fanatical Meat]

To me the easiest way is these fucking airguns should be in boxes

 

[LTC8K6]

To me the easiest way is these fucking airguns should be in boxes

They are.

There has been no explanation of how this one got out of it's box.

 

[CitizenKain]

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?

Yes, he said that after being shot. I know you don't really care, you just like seeing black people murdered by cops, its a thing for you racist trash.

 

[smackababy]

They are.

There has been no explanation of how this one got out of it's box.

I think there were reports that he found the rifle already out of the box. Now, why he thought it was a good idea to carry it around, is another matter. Even if he had the intent to buy that particular air rifle, despite it being out of it's box, why wouldn't he have it in cart?

 

[MrPickins]

Now, why he thought it was a good idea to carry it around, is another matter.

I'm not going to get into the culpability of the police in this situation, but I will say that I was dumbstruck when I saw the video and realized he had taken the gun across the store to "play" with it in what looks like the pet section and was pointing it around willy-nilly.

That was just dumb.

 

[trenchfoot]

I think there were reports that he found the rifle already out of the box. Now, why he thought it was a good idea to carry it around, is another matter. Even if he had the intent to buy that particular air rifle, despite it being out of it's box, why wouldn't he have it in cart?

Seems to me he obviously thought he was not displaying "a threatening posture" from minding his own business while strolling through the aisles and playing with a "toy" while talking on his phone.

Being preoccupied with his phone conversation, he was oblivious to his situational awareness where to another shopper who saw him strolling the aisles with the air rifle he looked so threatening to the point where the shopper's imagination ran wild and caused this shopper to exaggerate (lie) about what he saw in his 911 call, of which he later recanted after the security videos contradicted what he "witnessed". I wonder how that fear induced falsehood could have been used in court had the victim survived the shooting and there were no videos to record what actually happened.

A tragic comedy of errors by all involved it would seem, with the operational term "over-reacting" being the driving force behind it all.

 

[smackababy]

The only person that overreacted was the racist idiot who called 911 and delivered his "black man with gun, omg scary" fantasy. The police responding, unable to ascertain the caller fabricated what was actually happening responded correctly. The guy himself was running around a store with what could easily be mistaken for a real gun. That is just plain stupid, especially, if you are going to be "playing around" with it and that involves pointing in the direction of others.

Tragedy? Sure. It seems like this guy had a momentary lapse in judgement and it sadly ended up in him losing his life. I hope the initial caller gets some kind of charge. 911 abuse? Something beyond nothing, surely.

 

[trenchfoot]

The only person that overreacted was the racist idiot who called 911 and delivered his "black man with gun, omg scary" fantasy. The police responding, unable to ascertain the caller fabricated what was actually happening responded correctly. The guy himself was running around a store with what could easily be mistaken for a real gun. That is just plain stupid, especially, if you are going to be "playing around" with it and that involves pointing in the direction of others.

Tragedy? Sure. It seems like this guy had a momentary lapse in judgement and it sadly ended up in him losing his life. I hope the initial caller gets some kind of charge. 911 abuse? Something beyond nothing, surely.

Agreed.

 

[bradley]

I'm not going to get into the culpability of the police in this situation, but I will say that I was dumbstruck when I saw the video and realized he had taken the gun across the store to "play" with it in what looks like the pet section and was pointing it around willy-nilly.

That was just dumb.

The 'suspect' was standing (for a considerable amount of time) in an obviously isolated section of Walmart facing shelving (not people) while distracted on the phone.

The truly "dumb" (less than observant) person was the 911 caller following this dude around without even a basic understanding of what being an "ex-Marine" entails, someone who has passed basic training and served. A 'former-Marine' usually doesn't misidentify assault rifles and knows what it looks like to load them.

The only way that airgun could possibly kill a human is by shooting it directly into an eye socket (and thus the brain) at a fairly close range. Too bad the police relied on bad intelligence and shot on sight based on their own split-second observations.

No wonder the Ohio Attorney General's office didn't want the Walmart survallence video released to the media. It's even more damning than imaginable.

 

[MrPickins]

The 'suspect' was standing (for a considerable amount of time) in an obviously isolated section of Walmart facing shelving (not people) while distracted on the phone.

And far from any of the areas where one would expect a customer to be handling an apparent firearm they are intending to purchase.

The truly "dumb" (less than observant) person was the 911 caller following this dude around without even a basic understanding of what being an "ex-Marine" entails, someone who has passed basic training and served. A 'former-Marine' usually doesn't misidentify assault rifles and knows what it looks like to load them.

I agree the caller was dumb, but mostly because he lied about the situation, not because he misidentified the gun, which is intended to closely replicate an "assault rifle."

The only way that airgun could possibly kill a human is by shooting it directly into an eye socket (and thus the brain) at a fairly close range. Too bad the police relied on bad intelligence and shot on sight based on their own split-second observations.

That would be pertinent if it was immediately apparent that it was an airgun.



My whole point is that wandering around Wal-Mart handling what appears to be a semi-auto rifle is not the smartest move in the world.

Did he deserve to die for that? No.

 

[OverVolt]

Seemed like "Swatting" to me by the way.

 

[bradley]

And far from any of the areas where one would expect a customer to be handling an apparent firearm they are intending to purchase.



I agree the caller was dumb, but mostly because he lied about the situation, not because he misidentified the gun, which is intended to closely replicate an "assault rifle."

The 911 caller and "ex-Marine" Ronald Ritchie misidentified the weapon as an AR-15, and again made claims of it being loaded. The suspect was carrying an airgun in an open carry state minding his own business.

If Mr. Ritchie had minded his business, Walmart management were in the process of finding Mr. Crawford to ask him calmly to put the gun away. They would have soon discovered the airgun to be one sold in their very own store.

If police had taken time to observe Mr. Crawford for even a minute, all of this nonsense could have been avoided.

 

[master_shake_]

The 911 caller and "ex-Marine" Ronald Ritchie misidentified the weapon as an AR-15, and again made claims of it being loaded. The suspect was carrying an airgun in an open carry state minding his own business.

If Mr. Ritchie had minded his business, Walmart management were in the process of finding Mr. Crawford to ask him calmly to put the gun away. They would have soon discovered the airgun to be one sold in their very own store.

If police had taken time to observe Mr. Crawford for even a minute, all of this nonsense could have been avoided.

mr ritchie also said he was aiming at children and adults.

mr ritchie lied.

 

[smackababy]

mr ritchie also said he was aiming at children and adults.

mr ritchie lied.

And police know this how? They received reports of an armed suspect pointing a weapon at women in children in a Wal-Mart. They then, approached someone that matched the suspect's description and had what looked to be a real assault rifle in their possession. They ordered him to drop the weapon, upon which the suspect lifted said weapon and turned it towards the officers. They shot him, as is pretty much their only fucking choice. Had it actually been a real weapon and he had the intent to shoot officers, they (or someone else) 'could be dead if they hesitated. Police are trained to react in these situations. They don't freeze up or stop and think for a few seconds. If they do, it results in extremely unsafe conditions.

Now, Mr. Ritchie is a fucking idiot. He misidentified the weapon and made false claims of something he did not witness happening (pointing the weapon). At the same time, the victim was also not having his smartest moment, as he was carrying what could easily pass as a real assault rifle in his hands in a Wal-Mart. He didn't have it strapped to his body, in carrying position. He had it in his hands. And, he was not paying attention to his surroundings enough to respond to police commands in a way that wouldn't be viewed as threatening. It sucks he died for the actions of an idiot (Ritchie) and I hope his family takes him to court and holds him legally responsible. Hopefully, they can set a precedent that what is effectively swatting would put responsibility on the person who makes the call, not the responding officers. If you swat someone (or make any kind of false police statement that results in an death or injury), you are held accountable.

 

[bradley]

Good article that examines the overall picture of an overreaction by an increasingly militarized police to the mass shooting hysteria portrayed in the media, which should include the growing Internet influence on perceptions.

Mass shooting hysteria and the death of John Crawford
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ting-hysteria-and-the-death-of-john-crawford/

There are some obvious questions here about police training, most importantly why they fired so quickly and made no attempt at de-escalation. If they had, it seems pretty clear that Crawford would have dropped the gun and would still be alive today. It’s hard to believe that a father of two knowingly provoked police with a pellet rifle. That Crawford was black and the police officers who shot him are white (as is Ritchie) also raises the usual questions about racial bias, both in policing and in our perceptions of criminality.

But the case also raises some important questions about the consequences of how we cover mass shootings. This week, the FBI released a report that claimed to show a significant increase in “active shooter” incidents over the last 10 years. The report did not claim to show an increase in mass shooting incidents. Yet that’s how it was widely reported. Over at Reason, Jesse Walker consulted two academics who study mass shootings, Grant Duwe at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, and James Alan Fox, a criminology professor at Northeastern University. Both say the FBI report is a helpful contribution to the discussion, but also insist that it does not show what the media claim it shows.

Public discussion of mass shootings is of course usually draped in the gun-control debate, for obvious reasons. It also inevitably leads to discussions of what cultural factors maybe be causing the alleged increase in mass shootings — identified culprits include video games, violence on TV or in the movies, and the quality of our mental health system, among others — and how to protect against them. That inevitably leads to calls for gun control, but also prescriptions from the right for armed guards in schools, laxer gun laws to allow citizens to fight back, and so on.

But not only is there little evidence that mass shootings are on the rise, they’re also extremely rare, to the point where it may be unreasonable to think they can be prevented with changes in public policy — as Fox and Monica J. DeLateur concluded in their report on the Newtown massacre in the journal Homicide Studies. Of course, it’s difficult to point this out without being seen as callous, indifferent to those affected by these incidents, or shilling for the gun lobby, particularly after a mass shooting. Some of these policies may well be good ideas in and of themselves, but if there’s no evidence mass shootings are on the rise, and there’s no evidence that these policies will reduce them, arguing for them in the context of mass shootings becomes little more than a cynical appeal to emotion.

But there may be unintended consequences to our oversaturated coverage of mass shootings and the widespread belief that they’re increasing, even if neither produces a single new law. In 2010, there was an incident at a Las Vegas-area Costco that bears a striking resemblance to what happened in Ohio. Police gunned down Eric Scott, 38, outside the store after employees complained about the gun he was (legally) carrying. (Though the Costco had a surveillance system, the store claimed that the cameras mysteriously malfunctioned at the time of the shooting.) Scott was a West Point graduate with no criminal record. His family says he may have been agitated when hassled about a gun he was legally permitted to carry, but like Crawford’s family, they find it hard to believe that a guy with no criminal history or emotional problems would have intentionally provoked the police into shooting him.

It isn’t difficult to see how the misconception that mass shootings are becoming ubiquitous might make us see threats and potential mass killers instead of, say, a guy checking out a pellet gun, or a Costco shopper with a legal sidearm. And it isn’t difficult to see how a frightened witness might even exaggerate what he saw to get the police to take him seriously. Last month, the California State University San Marcos campus was put on lockdown and a SWAT team was sent in after someone mistook a staff member carrying an umbrella for a mass shooter. Umbrellas have caused similar lockdowns in Issaquah, Wash.; Fort Washington, Pa.; and Akron, Ohio.We’ve seen other recent lockdowns after cellphones (again here, here, and here), camera tripods (again here), a silver watch, and a folded-up apron were all mistaken for guns; an arm cut was mistaken for a bullet wound; an exploding basketball was mistaken for a gunshot; surveyors and an unarmed jogger were mistaken for gunmen; other various “mistaken identity” errors; and when someone misheard the lyrics to the theme song from “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.”(Yes, really.)

Perhaps these incidents can all be dismissed as a “better safe than sorry” approach. But the consequences get more serious when you start to think about the impact false perceptions about mass shootings might have on police officers. In the debate over police militarization, law enforcement officials and defenders of militarized cops frequently cite mass shooting incidents, particularly school shootings, as a big reason why cops need big guns, armored vehicles, and other battle gear. In truth, as University of Virginia sociologist and school violence scholar Dewey Cornell has pointed out, the average campus can expect to see a homicide about once every several thousand years. But it’s clear that much of the law enforcement community believes that it’s only a matter of time before a mass shooting incident comes to every community in America. And it seems reasonable to ask if those fears may be affecting the way police respond to incidents like those in Las Vegas and Beavercreek.

 

[realibrad]

I just watched the video, and I dont see where the cop felt that he raised the gun to him at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9FtNOV6Qhk

From what I see, the guy did not even turn to the cop to face him, or point the gun in any direction to anyone. The cop came around the corner and yells something, and then start shooting before the guy has time to react.

 

[cabri]

mr ritchie also said he was aiming at children and adults.

mr ritchie lied.

And police know this how? They received reports of an armed suspect pointing a weapon at women in children in a Wal-Mart. They then, approached someone that matched the suspect's description and had what looked to be a real assault rifle in their possession. They ordered him to drop the weapon, upon which the suspect lifted said weapon and turned it towards the officers. They shot him, as is pretty much their only fucking choice. Had it actually been a real weapon and he had the intent to shoot officers, they (or someone else) 'could be dead if they hesitated. Police are trained to react in these situations. They don't freeze up or stop and think for a few seconds. If they do, it results in extremely unsafe conditions.

Now, Mr. Ritchie is a fucking idiot. He misidentified the weapon and made false claims of something he did not witness happening (pointing the weapon). At the same time, the victim was also not having his smartest moment, as he was carrying what could easily pass as a real assault rifle in his hands in a Wal-Mart. He didn't have it strapped to his body, in carrying position. He had it in his hands. And, he was not paying attention to his surroundings enough to respond to police commands in a way that wouldn't be viewed as threatening. It sucks he died for the actions of an idiot (Ritchie) and I hope his family takes him to court and holds him legally responsible. Hopefully, they can set a precedent that what is effectively swatting would put responsibility on the person who makes the call, not the responding officers. If you swat someone (or make any kind of false police statement that results in an death or injury), you are held accountable.

Is there video refuting such? (bold)
Mis-identified weapon, does not reduce the potential threat unless he knew is was an air gun.
If the call relating to women/children was a ploy to get the police there; Richie holds serious blame.

If Crawford was carelessly pointing the weapon around; the a different story.

However, the police seems to have acted overly hasty without analyzing the situation unless they were misinformed about the seriousness of the threat.

It boils down to Ritchie's understanding of the situation.

A person waiving a weapon around could open fire on the slightest provocation;l therefore thepolice would have been over concerned.

 

[Jaskalas]

Well, yeah, most bitches scare easily

Remember that next time you face a gun.

You are free to hesitate as it is being raised. I would not.

 

[Jaskalas]

I just watched the video, and I dont see where the cop felt that he raised the gun to him at all.

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.

So you think this person is going to go from not facing police and unaware of their presence to leveling a rifle on them and firing in the space of a second? Are you aware that action movies are fake?

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

 

[smackababy]

Is there video refuting such? (bold)
Mis-identified weapon, does not reduce the potential threat unless he knew is was an air gun.
If the call relating to women/children was a ploy to get the police there; Richie holds serious blame.

If Crawford was carelessly pointing the weapon around; the a different story.

However, the police seems to have acted overly hasty without analyzing the situation unless they were misinformed about the seriousness of the threat.

It boils down to Ritchie's understanding of the situation.

A person waiving a weapon around could open fire on the slightest provocation;l therefore thepolice would have been over concerned.

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. Had this been a situation where the suspect didn't have a fake gun, and was willing to fire on police, had the officers hesitated he is getting at least one shot of in their direction. That is one too many and the public interest in removing the threat who has the potential for great bodily harm outweighs the public, armchair opinion of people whose most important decision of the day is what kind of cheese on their sandwich, and it isn't nearly as time sensitive. The information they received was that of an armed suspect brandishing a weapon in a threatening way in a Wal-Mart. The level of force used, based on just that description, is far about "kindly approaching in a casual manner".

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.