1. Yes, “A 911 caller who was **familiar with guns** called dispatch.”

   Yes, even though the real thing, he’s supposedly familiar with, and the pellet gun in question load NOTHING like each other.

2. On the other hand now that the grand jury is out of the way, their excuses for not releasing the video are no longer valid.

3. Phone number for the prosecutors office? This false-alarm caller needs to be made an example of in the court of law!

   1. This. I have not heard enough to decide one way or the other about the officer’s, but it definitely sounds like that 911 caller has some explaining to do.

4. Ritchie has no credentials and admitted to lying. WHY is he not being charged with something?!

   http://bearingarms.com/ex-marine-swatted-black-shopper-death-walmart-changes-story/

5. So whatever the dude was doing was enough to justify the shoot, but not enough to justify the 911 call, in you guys’ opinion…..?? mmmmmmkay then…..

   I’m betting the store surveillance footage shows the guy doing a few things the family lawyer failed to mention….. (but hey, I’m just guessing here, should probably go ahead and crucify the 911 caller now just in case the facts don’t end up backing up the SWATing theory I’ve screamed about on the internet….)

   the venom towards the 911 caller still baffles me…. you guys must be fortunate enough to do jobs that don’t require you to interact with the public very often…. people are stupid, stupid sometimes has consequences….. you’re giving this guy way too much credit with this premeditated, intent filled, knowingly false 911 call….

   1. did you forget the alias you were using before? It is FrankS.

      you’re giving this guy way too much credit with this premeditated, intent filled, knowingly false 911 call….
      How else do you explain him saying that the rifle was being loaded when it is impossible to load since the magazine is just a decoration and fixed to the body of the rifle?

      The police arrived with specific information and that was a man with a rifle, loading it and waving it (911 call) possible Active Shooter event. Did it turn out to be a good shooting? no. Was it justifiable in the legal sense and within the parameters we give Law Enforcement? Grudgingly yes.

      1. I suppose you could say I forgot, I just make up something random every time so committing it to memory isn’t exactly a priority… don’t take it personally….

         And I’ll say it again, I have no idea what the guy saw or thought he saw, I’m just saying that I have heard far dumber things come out of people’s mouths every day in my line of work and these people truly believe the ridiculous things they say. Maybe the guy was fondling the decorative magazine? I don’t know. That’s the point….. so much venom for this guy….. and we know nothing about what actually went down….

         1. Well now we do.

            The police were called on a guy who was standing in an empty aisle, talking on the phone. Then they shot an unarmed man.

            1. People see what they want to see I guess…. you’re smart enough not to walk around with that thing resting on your shoulder, though…. I hope….

               Or put another way, tell me that if you see that guy walking up your front walk you wouldn’t assume gun and take action, whether it be arming yourself or calling the cops? If you’re trying to convince me that you’re immediately going to recognize it was just a pellet gun and therefore no concern, you’re just not being honest with yourself…

               (I promise I’m going to try to remember to use this name from now on, I like it!)

6. The video has been released…

   http://www.whio.com/videos/news/walmart-shooting-surveillance-video-captures/vCtB6Z/

   1. More material; ~36min of Special prosecutor Mark Piepmeier presenting and explaining some of the evidence, http://wdtn.com/2014/09/24/video-walmart-grand-jury-announcement-in-its-entirety/

   2. OK, I can understand why the shooting was deemed justifiable. Coming back was not a good move.

      1. I just (fast forwarded to) and watched again, and according to the prosecutor Crawford wasn’t shot when he came back. Both, and only, shots fired were the shoot-on-sight-ones.

7. NO video, and a sad story…

8. all the vitriol over this and it turns out the guy was standing in the corner of the store for quite a while doing things that very well could have looked like loading a rifle and was undoubtedly doing things that can reasonably be described as waving it around…. a scared dude relays that to a dispatcher….. and the guy ends up shot….. sad, but pretty understandable…. If that guy was standing in your front yard doing exactly that with exactly that gun…. you don’t just go back to watching TV like nothing is going on, just admit it, you could have just as easily been the freaked out guy on the phone, with all your situational awareness and such…..

   Everyone complaining about the caller and demanding he be tried for manslaughter needs to watch the press conference that includes the entire call…. if you honestly still think he should be charged after that…. well I don’t know what else to tell you….

   The bottom line is you can OC all day every day and as long as you’re not fondling the thing and being all weird about it then this incident is of no relevance to whether or not you’re going to make it home alive and well to OC another day….

   1. in the corner of the store for quite a while doing things that very well could have looked like loading a rifle

      I looked up the BB rifle and found out that you cannot make the movements that are normally associated with loading a rifle since the magazine is decorative and part of the shell, in other words it cannot be removed. That is when it was clear the caller was BSing to 911. The video synced with the 911 call also shows what euphemistically you may call “discrepancies” of what he was relaying and what the video was showing.

      But of course the blame will not go to him since there is no money to be obtained out of his ass.

   2. I’d have to disagree with you. You’re mixing up what we saw and what the officers saw. The officers were not there for any waving around, or loading like motions. They took the callers word for all that, then, for all intents and purposes, shot him on sight at a point in time of him doing nothing terribly threatening other than holding it muzzle down and talking on the phone.

      So where I’d disagree is I’d say an open carrier for whom some idiot made some stuff up on the phone would definitely have something to fear from that cop.

      The caller exaggerated. It contributed to a person’s death. That IS a crime. Now we know it was just an exaggeration, not a total fabrication…so a tiny bit lesser of a crime…but it is a crime nonetheless.

      The police shot on sight without seeing him do anything threatening and without him even so much as having two hands on the thing. Again: that’s not ok.

      Yes, all 3 of these parties contributed…but that’s the thing: all 3 parties contributed. Had he survived he should have been charged for the way he was acting with the fake gun. The caller should be charged for exaggerated details of such a serious call and it leading to a person’s death. And the officer should at very least lose his job for being trigger happy and shooting a man that made no threatening motion toward him with a fake gun, and possibly even charged with a crime. You can’t just say that everyone contributed therefore nobody is responsible. It’s the opposite. Everyone contributed therefore everyone is responsible.

9. Am I missing something? I just watched the update #2 video several times. To me it looks like the police show up, and within 1-2 seconds shoot the guy. He did not point the “gun” at them, and I do not even see where he turned toward the police officers?

   Am I missing something?

   1. Paraphrasing Massad Ayoob:
      “If you wait to see the muzzle of the gun, you get to see what comes out of it.”

      1. Does that really apply here? Waiting to see a muzzle and shooting on sight are the 2 possible extremes on either end of the spectrum. Police typically have a duty that lies somewhere between those extremes. The fact that they shouldn’t wait for one extreme doesn’t mean they resort to the other.

10. Since I can’t figure out how to comment on the “How you see it” post, I’ll make my comments here.

    While I understand the mindset created by the game of telephone from the swatter, through dispatch, then finally to the police, I do have trouble accepting that the police bear no responsibility for being completely blind to the situation, or lack there of, on their ingress to it.

    Think about your last trip to a big box store, now overlay that with this situation…
    – you reach the entrance, people are coming and going like normal. As opposed to a mass exodus.
    – you go in the entrance, cashiers are running the registers, people are being checked out, others are shopping. It’s not a ghost town evacuated because of an active shooter.
    – you start going down the aisles towards the back of the store, people are shopping, literally nothing is happening. As opposed to panic, fear, hiding, attempting to escape, etc…
    – you reach the back of the store, a family with kids is walking away from where you are told the shooter currently is. They are calmly walking away and going about their regular shopping.
    – you turn the corner, BAM BAM! “It’s ok dispatch told me he was pointing a loaded gun at people.”

    I’ll admit the established mindset is a mitigating factor, and they didn’t go in with the preplanned intent of murdering an innocent person, but there’s certainly something seriously wrong here that looks dangerously close to criminal negligence.

11. I’d like to know when the police fired–I can’t tell if he was shot and fell, or if he dove for cover and was shot when he got back up and ran towards police.

    I don’t know if the 911 caller was lying–I don’t remember exactly what he said to 911–but I can see someone not intimately familiar with guns thinking he was loading it during part of the surveillance video.

Comments are closed.