John Crawford Case: It’s Open Carry for Whites and Open Season on Blacks

[Teddy B 17,252]

This is a bit disturbing. looks like the eyewitness who made the 911 call did some embellishing.

John Crawford III, a 22-year-old black man, was fatally shot by police inside an Ohio Walmart after another shopper reported Crawford was "walking around with a gun in the store." The alleged gun, which the witness described in a 911 call as a black rifle, and later said he thought was an AR-15, turned out to be a BB rifle from one of the store's shelves.

Now Ronald Ritchie, the 24-year-old who made that 911 call, is amending what he originally told police and reporters about the Aug. 5 incident.

Ritchie, to the dispatcher: "He's, like, pointing it at people." He also said in the call that Crawford was trying to load the gun, causing 911 to tell officers, "he just put some bullets inside."

Ritchie, to reporters at the time: "He was pointing at people. Children walking by."

Ritchie in the Guardian this week: "At no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody."

Well, that's certainly a different story. What changed during the past month?

Ritchie says he was allowed to view the sealed security video, recently shown to Crawford's family and their attorneys, that reportedly shows Crawford never lifted the BB gun and was on the phone and standing still when officers shot and killed him.

http://gawker.com/witness-in-walmart-police-shooting-now-says-victim-neve-1633432558

My apology, I see this was already posted earlier.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Teddy B

[Karee 4,190]

This is a bit disturbing. looks like the eyewitness who made the 911 call did some embellishing.

Hard to say what really happened, but I'd think if the cops thought there was some guy walking around with a loaded AR-15 in a department store pointing it at people, that probably had more to do with this guy being shot than anything else. Nothing to do with his race.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Once you've made up your mind this is about race, there's no changing it. So it's pretty much a waste of time to even debate the point with you.

Val linked to some story that doesn't show any video at all, so not sure what the outrage is about. I suspect the grand jury probably had a bit more evidence than has been posted here on VJ. Grand Juries are notorious for handing down indictments with the flimsiest of evidence, which is exactly what they should do. Hand down an indictment and let the process take it's course. It seems in this case there must have been ZERO evidence to even support an indictment.

A few frames from a surveillance camera never tells the whole story as has been pointed out over and over again.

I didn't. I asked you a simple question, just like you asked Val. If you can come up with an idea as to why the cop ran in and shot him, I'm all ears.

[Karee 4,190]

I didn't. I asked you a simple question, just like you asked Val. If you can come up with an idea as to why the cop ran in and shot him, I'm all ears.

That's the problem. You're looking at this and saying it HAD to be about race and then asking people to refute that premise, even though you have zero evidence that it was about race. You pulled the same thing with the TM/GZ fiasco. You start at a position of blatant racism when there is no evidence of it, and then tell everyone to prove you wrong.

It's a waste of time trying to disprove something where there's no evidence of it in the first place.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

That's the problem. You're looking at this and saying it HAD to be about race and then asking people to refute that premise, even though you have zero evidence that it was about race. You pulled the same thing with the TM/GZ fiasco. You start at a position of blatant racism when there is no evidence of it, and then tell everyone to prove you wrong.

It's a waste of time trying to disprove something where there's no evidence of it in the first place.

I didn't say it was about race. I asked you what other reason was he shot for. He wasn't resisting arrest, nor was he pointing the gun at anyone. He was on the phone and didn't even get a chance to turn around before he was shot. Why was that?

Let's have a discussion about the facts.

[Karee 4,190]

I didn't say it was about race. I asked you what other reason was he shot for. He wasn't resisting arrest, nor was he pointing the gun at anyone. He was on the phone and didn't even get a chance to turn around before he was shot. Why was that?

Let's have a discussion about the facts.

What facts? As far as I can tell, someone called the cops and said there was someone pointing an assault weapon at people in a local store. The cops showed up, thought their life was in danger, and they shot him

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

What facts? As far as I can tell, someone called the cops and said there was someone pointing an assault weapon at people in a local store. The cops showed up, thought their life was in danger, and they shot him

Facts like the cop had his gun drawn and shot him before he gave a verbal command. He was on the cell phone with his back turned. What happened to freeze, drop your weapon? How was his life in danger when Crawford didn't even know he was there until after he shot him? There was no attempt to diffuse the situation, and from what little I've seen, John didn't even realize what was going on until he was shot.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Facts like the cop had his gun drawn and shot him before he gave a verbal command. He was on the cell phone with his back turned. What happened to freeze, drop your weapon? How was his life in danger when Crawford didn't even know he was there until after he shot him? There was no attempt to diffuse the situation, and from what little I've seen, John didn't even realize what was going on until he was shot.

Where did you get this info from? All reports I read say that he was told numerous times to drop the weapon and didn't.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Where did you get this info from? All reports I read say that he was told numerous times to drop the weapon and didn't.

Surveillance video from Crawford's shooting—previously unavailable to the public—shows Crawford walking around the store while talking on the phone, with the BB gun at his side or on his shoulder. The disturbing video then shows an officer rushing toward Crawford with his gun drawn before shooting him.

[decocker 7,198]

That's what I thought. Please continue with your baseless allegations.

i don't feel like repeating myself a billion times. i'm not making any baseless allegations, i've seen the video. if you're cool with cops' reaction, awesome. i'm not. carry on thinking that this doesn't affect you.

[decocker 7,198]

Grand Juries are notorious for handing down indictments with the flimsiest of evidence, which is exactly what they should do.

except when it comes to cops.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Surveillance video from Crawford's shooting—previously unavailable to the public—shows Crawford walking around the store while talking on the phone, with the BB gun at his side or on his shoulder. The disturbing video then shows an officer rushing toward Crawford with his gun drawn before shooting him.

I still don't see anything that says the cops did not give any verbal commands. Is it in writing, or are you going by the video with no audio?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I still don't see anything that says the cops did not give any verbal commands. Is it in writing, or are you going by the video with no audio?

I'm going by the reaction of the shooting. If he gave a command to freeze or drop the weapon, John didn't show any indication he heard anything.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I still don't see anything that says the cops did not give any verbal commands. Is it in writing, or are you going by the video with no audio?

When you watch and listen, you hear the shots (8:26:57) and then screams (8:26:59) but nothing prior to the shots. I'd venture to say that if the audio from the caller captured the screams (which would appear to be from the victim) then it should have captured the commands of the cops as well. But there's nothing there. That's odd, isn't it? It is also odd, however, that the victim first fled from and then charged the cop. All that - if the audio is properly synchronized - happened after he was shot.

Looking at the footage, I don't really know what to think. The one thing I am sure about is that this fella behaved unbelievably stupid with that gun - toy gun or not - in the store.

[belinda63 3,038]

I hate to say I agree with the grand jury. While I don't believe the police gave any verbal commands as John does not seem to react to any verbal or visual stimulus I do see him "waving" in a casual manner what appears to be a rifle. What disturbs me is I don't see anyone else in the video other than him so who was he supposedly threatening or pointing the gun at? His big mistake was after the first shot when he got back up and ran at the police. This is where I believe they were justified in the shooting.

I think the man who phoned in the report to 911 should be charged with something as it was his description of the scene that made the police so trigger happy. Indeed they still should have announced themselves rather than a shoot first attitude, especially in light of no customers being around that would have been in danger had it been a real gun with a trigger happy holder. It was the phone call that people were having the gun pointed at them (which he later retracted) and that he heard sounds like the gun was being loaded (which would have been impossible) that made the police overreact. If it were not for his phone call which contained false and purposely misleading information this situation would never have happened.