Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Anyone hear about this?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ohio-walmart-shopper-called-911-charged-article-1.2592305

In short, in 2014, someone saw a guy walking around a walmart with a gun and called the police, who responded and shot the person with a gun. Turns out the gun was a bb gun he had gotten off the shelf in the store, presumably with the intention of buying it.

And now the guy who called 911 is facing potential fines and jail time.

That.....is pretty troubling. I mean, if he called 911 and claimed someone was actively shooting people in walmart, there were people dead and dying all over the place, etc, I could see a penalty for that amount of falsification.

And while the guy was incorrect about the gun and the threat, he may have been clueless about firearms - it wasn't really on him to investigate exactly what was going on, he just saw something potentially troubling and felt it prudent to call the police. It's on the police to respond, assess the situation, and respond accordingly. The caller claimed the guy with the gun was pointing it at customers, which was not supported by the CCTV, but it may have looked like that from his vantage point, I suppose. And his vantage point couldn't have been good because he was probably afraid of getting closer, and also if he had gotten closer he probably would have realized it was a bb gun.

Anyways. This entire event has been pretty concerning, to me, and this is an unpleasant new turn.

As an aside, I can't believe this story hasn't gotten more publicity. Everyone was shouting for a year or so about the Michael brown case, which was a clear case of police self-defense - the officer was looking for a suspect in a convenience store robbery, found someone matching the description walking in the middle of the street, stopped to question the suspect, was attacked by the suspect (who was considerably larger than the lone officer, with 2 accomplices - so the potential of being overpowered was very real), and responded with deadly force. That's pretty cut-and-dry in my book, but I have a brother who is a police officer, so I'm perhaps biased.

But this event was......considerably less favorable toward the police than that. They got it all on CCTV, and though the officers claim that the suspect didn't respond to police orders, the CCTV shows the guy just talking on his phone in the corner of the store, and then he was down.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/sep/25/ohio-shooting-walmart-video

Police are acquitted of all charges, but the 911 caller may be charged with a crime. That doesn't seem right to me.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:


Police are acquitted of all charges, but the 911 caller may be charged with a crime. That doesn't seem right to me.

Yeah its absolutely not right. I never liked that often police get off scott free after making bad judgement calls like that. intentional or not. (i mean they should get out of it depending on the situation and evidence involved)
though i honestly cant see the gun having those obnoxious orange tip.

hope the 911 caller gets out of it otherwise its going to be interesting.

So a member of the public can be held responsible for not being able to tell the difference between a real and a fake gun, but the police, who you think should be more qualified to make such an assessment, are not responsible even after they've arrived on the scene in person and chose to shoot the person. Extraordinary!

Next time, if the fire brigade can't put the fire out, the 911 caller is personally responsible for the cost of the building!

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
So a member of the public can be held responsible for not being able to tell the difference between a real and a fake gun, but the police, who you think should be more qualified to make such an assessment, are not responsible even after they've arrived on the scene in person and chose to shoot the person. Extraordinary!

Next time, if the fire brigade can't put the fire out, the 911 caller is personally responsible for the cost of the building!

And, I mean, I think there's a video somewhere that shows the police entering the building, and how long it takes them to get to the corner, and the police burst in, run to the corner, and just shoot the guy. I get they're keyed up, but the guy was on a cell phone with the gun at his side, pointed at the ground, 90 deg away from the officers. I feel as if they could have taken two seconds to assess it without shooting the guy dead.

While two seconds is a lot of time in a life-or-death firefight, but the guy wasn't acting threateningly at all or pointing the weapon at anyone. Seems they could have given him a bit more of a chance than they did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:



though i honestly cant see the gun having those obnoxious orange tip.

I don't either, but the CCTV is a little out of focus for that level of detail, honestly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My mistake, they didn't have orange tips, but that's because it is, technically, a gun. Just not a very dangerous one. Orange tips are only required on toy guns or airsoft.

http://wdtn.com/2014/10/06/why-bb-guns-are-not-required-to-have-orange-tips/

Are the police not required to shout a warning or instruction to drop the gun before they shoot? That seems crazy, and terrifying.

All those Open Carry dudes putting their lives in their hands, apparently.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

My mistake, they didn't have orange tips, but that's because it is, technically, a gun. Just not a very dangerous one. Orange tips are only required on toy guns or airsoft.

http://wdtn.com/2014/10/06/why-bb-guns-are-not-required-to-have-orange-tips/

Then honestly besides the amount of time given to the suspect (though IIRC these things record at different speed) i cant say the police was a fault due to non compliance.

I dont have audio on my PC Did they not say anything?

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Police are acquitted of all charges, but the 911 caller may be charged with a crime. That doesn't seem right to me.

I was also drawn in by your post until I went to the news article and read this little gem.

NYDailyNews wrote:"He's like loading it right now," Ritchie told dispatchers.

In actuality, surveillance footage shows Crawford standing in the pet section of the store, the gun casually by his side as he speaks on the phone. The gun can be seen swinging here and there, but it was never raised and never pointed at other shoppers — and never loaded.

And this one...

NYDailyNews wrote: At one point in the surveillance footage, a woman and two children are seen walking into the aisle, checking items on the shelves, the family and Crawford seemingly never noticing each other.

“The court does note that at the time that Ronald Ritchie is relaying to dispatch that Mr. Crawford is pointing the gun at two children, the video does not depict this event,” the judge wrote.

Sorta changes things a bit. The caller was obviously inflaming the situation by providing false details and a false sense of urgency. Given the information here, I view the caller as little different than someone hiring a hit man to have Crawford killed since he was set up to be murdered by the police. I hope the caller is tried, found guilty, and given a heavy sentence in prison.

I only wish the police had been charged as well. Perhaps the current DoJ investigation will prevail for the family, or a wrongful death suit if nothing else.

It is really scary how quickly things can escalate with armed police. I'm used to police armed with sticks, and you don't get people being accidentally killed by them.

The officers were charged- the Grand Jury found no probable cause and no billed it. Apparently now they are facing federal charges. Wrongful death is a civil claim which can be pursued regardless of the criminal charges.

The caller is charged with what appears to be a misdemeanor. Probably could have faced up to negligent homicide, depending on the jurisdiction.

Ehem, dear OP, you left out a /little/ detail that kinda changes the situation a bit. The 911 caller said that the man with the gun "pointed it at different people", that he "is loading the gun right now" and that he "is aiming at two kids"...and all of this turns out to be a blatant lie as the security camera footage clearly shows that none of this ever happened, the gun-wielder just stood there holding it by his side.

Now - that certainly doesn't mean that the police is off the bait. They did, however, ask him to lay down his weapon first, announcing their present and shot when he turned towards them.

And let's not forget about the fact that a Grand Jury who watched all available video material / listened to audio material cleared the officers from all charges. People with a /lot/ more insight than us.

So...I don't know if it's intended or not, but you leaving out very critical info makes the OP an extremely biased post, portraying the police officers to barge into the store and shooting the potentially armed civilian. Which isn't the case.

They received a 911 call that explicitely reported a shooter loading a gun and aiming a loaded gun at children, ready to shoot. That's a LOT different than a 911 call saying that there's a person with a gun. A high risk situation just turned into a very high risk situation with lives at immediate stake, where seconds can decide.

Holding the caller responsible is very reasonable. He purposefully and with full intent overexaggerated a dangerous situation. This isn't about making 911 calls or not, don't turn this into such a discussion, this is about him lying to the police in an extreme situation.

Ritchie called police on Aug. 5, 2014, warning dispatchers that a black man — John Crawford III — was walking around the Beavercreek Walmart, carrying a gun and "pointing it at people."

"He's like loading it right now," Ritchie told dispatchers.

In actuality, surveillance footage shows Crawford standing in the pet section of the store, the gun casually by his side as he speaks on the phone. The gun can be seen swinging here and there, but it was never raised and never pointed at other shoppers — and never loaded.

The caller escalated the problem. He lied to the 911 dispatch about seeing him load the gun and about him pointing it at people.

I hope he gets the full 6 months in jail.

 kronk wrote:
I hope he gets the full 6 months in jail.

An innocent man is dead. I wish there was a way to give the caller the 10-20 years he clearly (imo) deserves.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Police are acquitted of all charges, but the 911 caller may be charged with a crime. That doesn't seem right to me.

I was also drawn in by your post until I went to the news article and read this little gem.

NYDailyNews wrote:"He's like loading it right now," Ritchie told dispatchers.

In actuality, surveillance footage shows Crawford standing in the pet section of the store, the gun casually by his side as he speaks on the phone. The gun can be seen swinging here and there, but it was never raised and never pointed at other shoppers — and never loaded.

And this one...

NYDailyNews wrote: At one point in the surveillance footage, a woman and two children are seen walking into the aisle, checking items on the shelves, the family and Crawford seemingly never noticing each other.

“The court does note that at the time that Ronald Ritchie is relaying to dispatch that Mr. Crawford is pointing the gun at two children, the video does not depict this event,” the judge wrote.

Sorta changes things a bit. The caller was obviously inflaming the situation by providing false details and a false sense of urgency. Given the information here, I view the caller as little different than someone hiring a hit man to have Crawford killed since he was set up to be murdered by the police. I hope the caller is tried, found guilty, and given a heavy sentence in prison.

I only wish the police had been charged as well. Perhaps the current DoJ investigation will prevail for the family, or a wrongful death suit if nothing else.

I agree, the caller was wrong about a lot of details, but he may have been largely clueless about firearms other than how they generally look. And he probably wasn't anywhere close to the guy, because he was concerned it was an actual weapon, so his reports were probably based on what he could see at a distance to what I assume was an untrained eye.

At any rate, I think I read that the max penalty he's facing is $1000 and 6 months jail.

 kronk wrote:

Ritchie called police on Aug. 5, 2014, warning dispatchers that a black man — John Crawford III — was walking around the Beavercreek Walmart, carrying a gun and "pointing it at people."

"He's like loading it right now," Ritchie told dispatchers.

In actuality, surveillance footage shows Crawford standing in the pet section of the store, the gun casually by his side as he speaks on the phone. The gun can be seen swinging here and there, but it was never raised and never pointed at other shoppers — and never loaded.

The caller escalated the problem. He lied to the 911 dispatch about seeing him load the gun and about him pointing it at people.

I hope he gets the full 6 months in jail.

Honestly, 6 months seems way too low for this. He directly contributed to this mans death.

Also, even though the Police did shout for him to drop his weapon, there was absolutely no reason to shoot him for just turning around to assess the situation. If I was holding a BB gun and somebody yelled "drop the gun" at me, I would turn to see who was yelling at me. If I was on the phone, I probably wouldn't have heard all of what they said so I would have definitely turned to see what was going on. I find it unreasonable that the cops are not being held responsible for this.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Ehem, dear OP, you left out a /little/ detail that kinda changes the situation a bit. The 911 caller said that the man with the gun "pointed it at different people", that he "is loading the gun right now" and that he "is aiming at two kids"...and all of this turns out to be a blatant lie as the security camera footage clearly shows that none of this ever happened, the gun-wielder just stood there holding it by his side.

Now - that certainly doesn't mean that the police is off the bait. They did, however, ask him to lay down his weapon first, announcing their present and shot when he turned towards them.

And let's not forget about the fact that a Grand Jury who watched all available video material / listened to audio material cleared the officers from all charges. People with a /lot/ more insight than us.

So...I don't know if it's intended or not, but you leaving out very critical info makes the OP an extremely biased post, portraying the police officers to barge into the store and shooting the potentially armed civilian. Which isn't the case.

They received a 911 call that explicitely reported a shooter loading a gun and aiming a loaded gun at children, ready to shoot. That's a LOT different than a 911 call saying that there's a person with a gun. A high risk situation just turned into a very high risk situation with lives at immediate stake, where seconds can decide.

Holding the caller responsible is very reasonable. He purposefully and with full intent overexaggerated a dangerous situation. This isn't about making 911 calls or not, don't turn this into such a discussion, this is about him lying to the police in an extreme situation.

I apologize if I came across as tailoring the information - that's why I posted links to the stories, so people could read up on the situation for themselves. I was just posting my take on it, is all. And I agree, I'm sure there were trials and juries and witnesses much more suited to discuss it than us, but again, just my thoughts.

 Breotan wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I hope he gets the full 6 months in jail.

An innocent man is dead. I wish there was a way to give the caller the 10-20 years he clearly (imo) deserves.

I don't disagree with you, Breotan.

Given you are allowed to walk around with guns in the USA, the police shouldn't just shoot you dead for walking around with a gun.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given you are allowed to walk around with guns in the USA, the police shouldn't just shoot you dead for walking around with a gun.

They didn't. They were called to a situation that was, according to a caller, shortly before a massacre with a gunman pointing a loaded gun at children. When they arrived, they shouted at him, asking him to stay down and in response, the person who was made out to be a potential gunman about to start a killing spree and holding a gun in his hand turned towards them. That's when they shot.

You simplifying this down to "they shot someone with a gun" is a gross oversimplification and isn't even close to portraying the actual situation.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given you are allowed to walk around with guns in the USA, the police shouldn't just shoot you dead for walking around with a gun.

They didn't. They were called to a situation that was, according to a caller, shortly before a massacre with a gunman pointing a loaded gun at children. When they arrived, they shouted at him, asking him to stay down and in response, the person who was made out to be a potential gunman about to start a killing spree and holding a gun in his hand turned towards them. That's when they shot.
You simplifying this down to "they shot someone with a gun" is a gross oversimplification and isn't even close to portraying the actual situation.

Do you believe that is a reasonable response to somebody turning around?

Where did I say that?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where did I say that?

You didn't, that is why I asked.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given you are allowed to walk around with guns in the USA, the police shouldn't just shoot you dead for walking around with a gun.

They didn't. They were called to a situation that was, according to a caller, shortly before a massacre with a gunman pointing a loaded gun at children. When they arrived, they shouted at him, asking him to stay down and in response, the person who was made out to be a potential gunman about to start a killing spree and holding a gun in his hand turned towards them. That's when they shot.

You simplifying this down to "they shot someone with a gun" is a gross oversimplification and isn't even close to portraying the actual situation.

All I did was read and respond to the original article.

How did the caller know a gun massacre was going to occur soon? Why didn't he direct the police to the massacre rather than this innocent man?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where did I say that?

You didn't, that is why I asked.

Gotcha. No, they did not act professionally. He was running away, he did not raise his weapon army, he could not even fire the gun from his position. It would have taken him half a body turn, raising his weapon army, getting his other hand on the trigger and aiming at the police officers to shoot them, let alone his body language clearly showing no sign of alarmness, in the contrary. Shooting him that fast was unprofessional. Since the officers in question have been cleared by a Grand Jury, howver, that case is moot.

What matters in this thread is the 911 caller and he definitely played a large part into escalating the situation. His purposeful (!) misinformation had the officers going in at full alarmness and most likely was the main factor to them clearly overreacting; and therefore, he is guilty and should be punished accordingly.

 Da Boss wrote:
All those Open Carry dudes putting their lives in their hands, apparently.

That depends. Are these Open Carry dudes walking around with their firearms holstered, or are the walking around with gun in hand/pointing it at other people?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
All those Open Carry dudes putting their lives in their hands, apparently.

That depends. Are these Open Carry dudes walking around with their firearms holstered, or are the walking around with gun in hand/pointing it at other people?

Apparantly it doesn't matter. Whether or not the police will cap you depends on what the 911 caller says.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given you are allowed to walk around with guns in the USA, the police shouldn't just shoot you dead for walking around with a gun.

They didn't. They were called to a situation that was, according to a caller, shortly before a massacre with a gunman pointing a loaded gun at children. When they arrived, they shouted at him, asking him to stay down and in response, the person who was made out to be a potential gunman about to start a killing spree and holding a gun in his hand turned towards them. That's when they shot.

You simplifying this down to "they shot someone with a gun" is a gross oversimplification and isn't even close to portraying the actual situation.

All I did was read and respond to the original article.

How did the caller know a gun massacre was going to occur soon? Why didn't he direct the police to the massacre rather than this innocent man?

Seems to you didn't bother to read the original article at all since the caller said this.

"He's like loading it right now," Ritchie told dispatchers.

The caller gave the authorities the very clear impression that the man with the bb gun was a danger to others around him. And that is why he is being charged with a misdemeanor of raising false alarm. I do have to say, you're on a role lately of misrepresenting things. In this quote alone you're throwing around generalities about how we handle firearms in our nation, then claim your responding to an article, that you obviously didn't read since it very clearly established answers to the question you asked.