called 911 so the cops could gun him down.

metalman

metalman

Active Member
Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
10,232
Reaction score
3,006
Ohio Wal-Mart surveillance video shows police shooting and killing John Crawford III

If you sync the phone call to the surveillance video footage you’ll notice that Ronald Ritchie, the caller, makes claims that are not true:

that “Crawford was pointing the air rifle at customers,” that he threatened “two children,” and that he was recklessly “waving it around.”

He’s lying to the dispatcher

Crawford is still on the phone when officers confront him, he’s probably not paying attention

So should Ronald Ritchie be prosecuted for murder for the death of Crawford because of his false report ?

 
Hmm. Two people died, eh? Well, it seems appropriate to attempt the prosecution because the evidence suggests that the caller was describing the situation in a misleading way that caused public danger. Perhaps he is s a guy who has real mental problems and his report was in earnest or he felt the response was too slow and decided to add some pizazz to hurry things along.

That being said, when I watched the video I saw the typical gung-ho charge in like a bunch of idiots strategy that is often associated with "accidents" like shot kids and flash-bangs thrown into baby cribs. If these cops can't be punished because they were following procedure then the guys that created the procedure need to be punished.

If someone developed a medical procedure that kept getting people killed you would hope that some level of authority would require a reassessment.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
That being said, when I watched the video I saw the typical gung-ho charge in like a bunch of idiots strategy that is often associated with "accidents" like shot kids and flash-bangs thrown into baby cribs. If these cops can't be punished because they were following procedure then the guys that created the procedure need to be punished.
Click to expand...

At 8:26:53 into the film the Officer comes into frame, and looks down the aisle in which John Crawford is talking on the phone.

At 8:26:56— three seconds later Crawford has already been struck with two bullets and drops the BB gun as he falls to the floor — which was pointing at the ground for the entire time that the officer saw him.

The police were reacting to an "inside the building" hostage type call, the 911 caller Ronald Ritchie set up the whole situation which resulted in the death of John Crawford
 
metalman said:
The police were reacting to an "inside the building" hostage type call, the 911 caller Ronald Ritchie set up the whole situation which resulted in the death of John Crawford
Click to expand...
Sometimes I have no idea why you are replying to some things. Basically you just narrate the video here. Are you actually trying to make a comment on what I said? Why don't you just make a comment instead of typing up the stuff that we already agree on?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Sometimes I have no idea why you are replying to some things. Basically you just narrate the video here. Are you actually trying to make a comment on what I said? Why don't you just make a comment instead of typing up the stuff that we already agree on?
Click to expand...
because Science!
you estimated, I quantified
police gave him less than 3 seconds to respond, while he was distracted and talking on the phone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top