When Ronald Ritchie called 911 from the aisles of a Walmart in western Ohio last month to report that a black man was “walking around with a gun in the store”, he said that shoppers were coming under direct threat.

“He’s, like, pointing it at people,” Ritchie told the dispatcher. Later that evening, after John Crawford III had been shot dead by one of the police officers who hurried to the scene in Beavercreek, Ritchie repeated to reporters: “He was pointing at people. Children walking by.”

One month later, Ritchie puts it differently. “At no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody,” the 24-year-old said, in an interview with the Guardian. He maintained that Crawford was “waving it around”, which attorneys for Crawford’s family deny.

via “Ex-Marine” Who SWATted Black Shopper To Death in Wal-Mart Changes His Story – Bearing Arms.

I am gonna jump the gun, call this one a SWATing and get it over with. Ronald Ritchie got himself a lawyer probably because the hard evidence is gonna be enough to at least indict him for Manslaughter.  Is he the only dumb bastard in the Western hemisphere that does not know 911 records all the calls and Wal-Mart has more surveillance cameras than London? John Crawford deserves justice.

And God Forbid he is a member of a Gun Control cult/group.

Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

25 thoughts on “Ladies and Gents, we had a SWATing: The John Crawford Case.”
  1. “Ritchie told several reporters after the 5 August shooting that he was an “ex-marine”. When confronted with his seven-week service record”

    Ex-Marine my ass. 7 weeks, he wasn’t even out of boot camp. He’s a poser and his wanting to look like a hero bullshit got a Innocent man killed. He should be charged with manslaughter at the very least.

    ” The police response was immediate and overwhelming, and Crawford was shot and killed within seconds when Beavercreek officers arrived at the scene.”

    Someone needs to teach these coppers that you don’t just run into Wal-Mart guns blazing. What happened to threat assessment?

    1. Yep, while Richie has the primary fault for bring the police in, the police are still responsible for their response. Had they acted appropriately, this would not have happened.

      1. I’d reverse that. Those primarily responsible are those who pulled the trigger. The 911 caller was indirectly responsible.

  2. He’s not going to get charged with anything and any lawsuit will fail as well… This guy sucks, but it’s still on the cops to, ya know, do their jobs and stuff and not just start killing people because the guy on the phone told them to….. How are they going to charge him with anything when the cops have no doubt tidied up their stories and documented everything in a way that justifies it….. Can’t charge the guy unless you charge the cops, and that ain’t gonna happen…..

    1. Not necessarily. It’s perfectly analogous to the falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. Those who trample others under the reasonable, but unknown to them false, belief relayed from the shouter are not acting criminally.

      The same goes for the police in this case. IF the police acted in accordance with their training, department policy, and they were above board in their reporting after the fact the only ones who should be facing criminal charges would be the Ritchies.

        1. while SWATing is definitely illegal, it only even comes close to being prosecuted if there is malicious intent, same with yelling fire in a crowded theater. A bonehead overreacting when he sees something he isn’t comfortable with while at Walmart doesn’t even come close to malicious intent, even if he knowingly exaggerated. You can’t logically argue both that the shooting was justified but that the phone call that reported the justifiably dead guy was not. No prosecutor would even consider putting that claim in front of a jury.

          It is just silly to me that people are making this about the guy who called 911…. apparently most of you don’t have much experience responding to 911 calls, 90% of them turn out to be total crap and everyone who is in a role that requires you to respond to them knows it…. you react to the information you get on the scene. paramedics don’t start defibrillating people because the guy on the phone can’t find a pulse, firemen don’t start blasting a house with water because the lady on the phone says her kitchen is on fire…. the cop was no doubt a little more excited given the nature of the call, but come on, even in Beavercreek I’m sure he’s responded to plenty of calls where someone is reported to have a weapon….. the shoot was either justified or it wasn’t, the business about the 911 caller is a sideshow being played up by the dead guy’s lawyers, just an extra person to throw onto the wrongful death suit….

          1. Involuntary Manslaughter
            The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally.
            Most unintentional killings are not murder but involuntary manslaughter. The absence of the element of intent is the key distinguishing factor between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. In most states involuntary manslaughter results from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while performing a legal act, or while committing an act that is unlawful but not felonious.

  3. FrankS,
    The family has seen the tapes and said that the police shot with no warning. Until I read that I was going to give the police the benefit of doubt. If John had turned towards them when they shouted, “Drop it” or anything else, then it would have been justified. No way the police could know it was a pellot gun. But according to the family the video indicates that they just shot him without yelling at him, or that they shot at the same time that they yelled at him.

    I also wonder if only one officer fired. One has been placed back on duty, but the second officer is still sitting at a desk pending investigation.

    So…to me there are at least 3 people that should go up river for this. Maybe 4.

      1. They may not be required to in this society, but in a just society they should be. They may “feel” their is imminent danger, but just like we teach verifying your target to gun owners, the police should verify their target is actually a danger.

      2. They still have to demonstrate the danger was imminent. Someone facing away from you, with a gun slung over his shoulder, is not an imminent threat.

  4. Where is the video from inside the Wal-Mart?
    It was reported the police shot him in the back without any warning?
    Was Mr. Crawford waving the BB gun around?

    The video would answer that question.

    1. Except for allowing the family to see a portion of the video, the cops/DA are not releasing the video due to this being an ongoing investigation.

      “The family has requested public release of the store video. But Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine has refused to release it while the investigation is continuing.”

      My opinion is the vid probably makes them look bad.

      1. He may disappoint me, but I think Mike Dewine is keeping the video close to the vest so as not to taint a possible jury pool. He’s saying all of the right things so far to make me think he’s going to prosecute…somebody. The police cheif was also in a hurry to get the investigation done outside of his county. That way he won’t take the heat for one of his officers going down. We’ll see…

  5. Patrickhenry2nd —

    “Verifying” your target is an imminent threat (by the standards of a “reasonable person”) doesn’t require shouting at them.

    If a subject points a gun at you, they ARE an imminent threat. because they can pull the trigger before you say, “Police! Freeze!” or whatever you think should be mandatory.

    And if they point something at you that merely appears to be a gun (by the “reasonable person” doctrine), the same applies — police are not required to be psychics with 20/10 vision.

  6. I’m failing to feel any sympathy for the guy who was killed. It’s too bad that the police officers now have to feel the guilt of killing a man who didn’t have a real weapon, but that’s really the only bad thing to have come from this. I’m sure they’ll be fine. Just leave the cops alone and leave the Ritchies alone. They’ve all suffered enough knowing what happened, they don’t need you make it worse by rubbing it in.

    As for the guy who died… Well, we all have to die sometime. In the end it’s pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Whether he died last month or died 40 years from now, it doesn’t matter in the end. Let’s just focus on the people who are still alive, and the suffering they’re going through.

    1. “leave the Ritchies alone. They’ve all suffered enough knowing what happened”

      The Ritchies are thrilled that they were able to take out a dangerous gun nut using a fraudulent 911 call. From the content of your post, you’re probably as happy about it as they are.

Comments are closed.