Video has now been release of the August shooting (at about 8:26:55) of Ohio Walmart shopper John Crawford III. A grand jury found insufficient evidence to indict Beavercreek Officer Sean Williams. But as usatoday.com reports, Crawford’s family claims the shooting constitutes a murder and now “Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine announced Wednesday that he is turning the investigative files over to the U.S. Department of Justice for a civil rights review. The federal government has been monitoring the case and agreed to a review.” It was already known that Crawford had taken a pellet gun from another part of the store and police responded to a report of a man waving a gun around. Does seeing the video change your view of the incident?

247 Responses to BREAKING: Video of Ohio Walmart Shopper Shooting Released

    • You see it as shopping? With a rifle? Stopping there, in a corner, for minutes, waving the rifle openly in public. That’s shopping for you? Man, don’t you have your own personal conception of shopping. I would NOT shop with ANYTHING resembling a rifle – including an umbrella – in any country. Including the US of A.

        • Michael, watch your words. Neither. And how about you and your broken spirit? Tell me about it and about yourself. I come from a different world than yours. Way different. But I know your world, too. I was born in the USA – Texas to be precise – and was raised in Italy. I have a large collection of firearms. Been a firearm enthusiast for decades. How about you, “buddy”. Still, NOTHING like that would ever come in my mind, not even as a teenager: wave a rifle in a public place. Never. Not even in Italy, where guns/firearms are seen in a radically different way than how they are seen HERE (in the US) now. This father of two should have informed himself about how his country sees guns now: a danger.

        • Gee, Michael, even when I am shopping in the gun department at Cabela’s, I put the guns and ammo in the shopping cart, rather than wandering the store around pointing them at other people. Guess you must have a different shopping culture, huh?

        • Young Mr. Crawford was playing with a BB gun that was not stocked properly. He was not going to buy it. He was there with his girlfriend and was passing the time while talking on the phone. He happened across the loose gun and just picked it up and did not think it was such a big deal. It was from the store that he was in so why can’t he carry it? He did not point it at anyone. The video proves the 911 caller was embellishing.
          What gets me is, guys like you complain that people have an irrational fear of guns, then you criticize Crawford saying that he should not be carrying a gun because it scares people.

        • Michael, were you born a belligerent fool, or did you have to drink a lot and do a lot of drugs to get so hopelessly stupid?

      • You mean chatting on the phone while idly swinging the toy rifle MUZZLE DOWN. The toy that is a PRODUCT FOR SALE IN THE SAME STORE. Maybe he was looking at a particular product and was checking with the person on the other end of the phone about it? Or he’s preoccupied with whatever the subject of the call is so he stopped walking? Does that call for being shot by police? In what way does his holding of the product he picked up off the shelf of that store threaten ANYBODY? Did you even watch the video?

        The fact that you are so scared of the state to even carry an umbrella shows how lost you are.

        • And the aggressiveness of both you and mr mikey up there show how lost you two are, too.
          Yes, I am afraid to publicly wave ANY gun in a public place. Any gun that is NOT painted orange, can put me and my loved ones at risk. I do know this, and yet I was not brought up in the US (where I do live happily now). Let me ask you if you know it, too? Are you aware of gun safety? Are you aware of current political, social conditions. Do you train your loved ones about this. Something tells me you could and should do more. This case is an unfortunate fatality.

        • Your anger is understandable since you feel so oppressed. I am going to cut you some slack.
          Tell you what I will do in your honor. I will drop everything in my hands and drop to the ground at the very sight of a police officer. God forbid if I am in my front yard chopping wood and a cruiser drives by in time to see me swing an ax. You know…because of all the ax murderers.

    • BTW this is the core of the problem in Ferguson. Good point, bad poster child… Most of the cop triggerhappiness falls on blacks and they’re pissed, can’t blame them. Although high black crime rates don’t help.

      • Also what doesn’t help is the rioting. looting, burning businesses and the random beating and sometimes death of those innocent of the initial “outrage”,

      • Really? Blacks in Ferguson are murdered by police so often that Mike Brown was the best case they could make a stand on?
        Then to prove that they receive unfair and undue attention from the ENTIRE law enforcement community they go out and and have a crime superbowl…
        Comparing this case to Ferguson is ridiculous. I won’t lump every cop into the same barrel any sooner than I would shoulder the entire black community with the acts of a bunch of looting rioters.

    • It appears to me that the police used a “shoot first and ask questions later” attitude. There were no shots fired, they went in there seeking to shoot the guy as soon as possible without making any rational assessment.

      They could have peaked around the corner to see if he was in a hostile posture. They could have yelled at him to drop the “gun”. They didn’t. They just shot him.

      The police chief made a statement that he refused to drop the gun. Well, he did drop it and ran, then the cop ran up and shot him, unarmed. The cop that shot him almost tripped over the gun that was dropped.

      Bad shoot.

      • They shot so incredibly fast, less than 1.5 seconds after first contact, that I am not convinced this wasn’t a negligent discharge. I realize two shots were fired but I don’t know if it was a double tap or one from each gun. I would like to know what trigger was installed in that rifle. It looks custom not department issue. Double tap NDs do happen. I suspect this for two reasons. 1) The immediate fire upon contact. The shot immediately followed first command even though Crawford made no threatening move. 2) When Crawford gets to his feet and runs, he runs directly into the barrel of the rifle and yet the cop did not fire at Crawford who was running right at him. Hmmm? Did he realize his mistake?

  1. Tough call – the police had a report of a man who was loading a gun (“a black rifle”!!) and waving it around, pointing it at children. They had no idea it was a pellet gun. Tough call. I can see why they felt they had to stop him quickly.

      • Reasonable fear of death or grevious bodily harm? It wouldn’t fly if a cc’er had shot him… Why should it for a cop? Ok, perhaps they had bad information… Perhaps fear of death or grevious bodily harm could be considered reasonable… We’ll give it to them…

        Was immenence immenent?

        NOPE!!!! Bad shoot. no question about it.

      • I take that back. So far only a couple guys are defending the cops. I expected all the “RF is a cop hater” guys to jump on this one. There silence speaks volumes. The tape don’t lie. Good job TAAG readers! I have a renewed faith in you. Now fix that OC attitude.

    • He dropped the “gun” as soon as he saw the police and tried to run away. They shot him anyway. What’s so “tough” about that? They shot first, no questions asked.

      • I don’t think he dropped the gun or tried to run away. I can’t watch the video right now but from eye witness reports he did not drop the pellet gun, he yelled that “it was just a toy’, and he was shot an instant later.

      • He dropped it as soon as the cops Call of Duty tactical operated bullets into his law abiding body. This was murder, now way at all a reasonable person would have sniped a dude half a store away shopping. You need a feeling of judicial empowerment to get that kind of trigger happiness, or a mental illness.

      • In their defense they were pretty well coached by the caller. He gave a perfect description of what was going on (well really what he perceived was going on, I didnt see the guy do even half of what the caller said he was doing), told them exactly where he was, said he was pointing it at people, trying to load it etc. I personally didnt see any of that going on, the video wasnt the best quality and the guy is far enough away. I think it should have been a dead giveaway that this guy wasnt out to kill people given that no less than a dozen people walked by the guy without getting shot and none of them looked particularly afraid or panicked if they even noticed him at all. I thought that at multiple times during the video. The 911 caller seemed to be the only one freaking out about this, and I firmly believe his descriptions led exactly to the outcome. Those cops came in guns hot probably as a direct result of all that guy was saying to the operator.

        As a side note this sends a chilling message to anyone who open carries, I wouldn’t be surprised if Shannon and her minions would stoop so low as to say the say things like this caller did to try and get an OC demonstrator shot. Be safe out there guys.

        • I didn’t see the individual point the pellet gun at anyone. The individual was constantly swinging the pellet gun from his shoulder to his hip when people were near him. Although when the caller said, “He looks like he is just trying to load it,” the individual did appear to be fiddling with the pellet gun and from the rearward perspective it is hard to tell what he is doing specifically. Worst of all the caller claimed he was pointing a gun at 2 children when he did no such thing. Ultimately it was the caller that created the response that the police took when the he lied about a man pointing a gun at people. The caller caused the death of the individual by setting up a false scenario for the police, he essentially “forced” the police to shoot the individual.

          As for actions of the police. Their actions weren’t necessarily the wrong thing to do based on the scenario the caller had gave them. If you listen to 9-1-1 audio, in general, you will hear the dispatcher giving boiled down information to the police. So the mindset of the officers could have been: a black man, threatening the lives of children with a loaded assault rifle, at Wal-Mart. They would prepare mentally for a shootout, physically they throw on their plate carrier and grab their AR-15. From what I can tell, the thing the police did wrong was not clearly announcing themselves to the individual. From the audio it sounded like all they said before they fired was, “put it down!” The police should have shouted, “Police! Don’t Move! Drop the gun now!” The “don’t move” is very important to say before “drop the gun” because people don’t know how to react properly.

          As for the individual with the pellet gun. When the police instructed him to put down the gun he shouted, “it’s a toy,” as he started to run. Once he started to move in the manner he did, the police were forced to shoot him because he still had the pellet gun in his hand. The police had to shoot because they couldn’t allow a so called “active shooter” to get behind cover and start firing. From a tactical perspective and from the perspective of protecting the shoppers (who were still in the store) it was the right decision. The individual shouldn’t have moved the way he did and he should have immediately dropped the pellet gun. Yelling, “it’s a toy,” is good, but the police shouldn’t believe that to be a true statement.

          One thing that strikes me as damning against the caller is his comment to the women crying after the individual was shot. The demeanor he has when he tells her, “Why you crying?” Also his demeanor when he says, “Holy shit,” at the end of the call. It sounds like he (unapologetically) got what he wanted and that he is surprised he did.

          The police didn’t make a bad decision based on the scenario the caller lied about and the actual scenario the individual with the pellet gun created when he ran. The individual with the pellet gun made a big mistake that got him shot. The caller setup the police and the victim with his lies. The officer should be apologetic to the family of the man he killed. The caller should go to jail for causing the death of an innocent man by lying to the police.

          This event shows us how a liar can get a concealed/open carrier (or a kid with a toy/fake gun) killed. It reminds me of the 9-1-1 audio I have heard from people calling in about open/concealed carriers.

        • “Once he started to move in the manner he did, the police were forced to shoot him…”

          Did we watch the same video?

      • He didn’t drop the gun on command or on sight of the police. Neither did he try to run. He stood there defiantly swinging the gun like a pendulum, with the muzzle climbing higher with each swing. When the muzzle reached near horizontal on a forward swing, the police fired. Then he dropped the gun and stumbled before falling down.

        This looks unfortunate to me, and like any such situation, probably could have been resolved better and perhaps peacefully. Nevertheless, he himself had the last clear chance(s) to avoid this outcome.

        Regular readers know I am no fan of police in general, but based on this video, I’d vote not to indict. More and improved training, maybe a re-examination of operating protocol, could be in order, but I’m not seeing a criminal offense by the police here.

        • “He didn’t drop the gun on command or on sight of the police. Neither did he try to run. He stood there defiantly swinging the gun like a pendulum, with the muzzle climbing higher with each swing. When the muzzle reached near horizontal on a forward swing, the police fired”.

          Did you watch the video with sound? You think he was being defiant? There was hardly time to be defiant or do anything between the time that the police shouted and fired. The cops crept up on him and he was not facing them. I respect law enforcement but when they fuck up, and they do, I don’t have any bias when judging what the evidence before me shows. By the way that forward swing was pointing at no one in a threatening manner. Was Crawford careless with a BB gun? Sure. Did the cops act properly even if this were a center fire rifle that was loaded? No way. And if the law says they did, then for the sake of freedom, we need to change the law.

        • “He didn’t drop the gun on command or on sight of the police. Neither did he try to run.”

          You clearly didn’t watch the video at all.

      • I agree with you. I saw nothing in the video that warranted either the 911 call or the shooting. The “gun” was on the ground when he was shot. This was an unjustified shooting. Both the cop and the A-hole who placed the 911 call should be charged. I only saw the people with the child and the cart anywhere near the victim and they didn’t look too concerned.

    • I disagree; however I do admit his behavior is a bit odd. Why was he loitering there swinging around the gun? Furthermore, why did he have an opened BBgun/Airsoft? The ones I’ve seen are usually in plastic or boxes. Anyway on to my rant:

      Shoot first and ask questions later has become the overused cliche among LEOs. Force of violence over critical thinking.

      Armchair quarterbacking here:
      1st. I assume they did not collect intel like: Has this guy fired a shot? Has he been verbally threatening to staff/customers?
      2nd. From the video, I assume the only verbal challenge was “Freeze” or “Drop the weapon” – milliseconds before they shot him.
      3rd. It’s reasonable that since this is a large department store, this could be a BBgun or a toy airsoft gun.

      They have superior tactical position and cover. Verbal challenges should have been used and until he shouldered that BBgun and took aim, their fingers shouldn’t even touch their triggers. Pretty sure our soldiers have more strict ROE’s than our cops do.

        • Not sure why you are quoting the word loitering because by definition, that is exactly what he is doing. Google defines as “stand or wait around idly or without apparent purpose.”

          Just seemed like a weird thing to do in the dog food section with a toy gun is all, of course lots of weird things happen in department stores.

        • Exactly, people! Watch the whole video before commenting. The caller notes that the guy is on the phone…hence the guy is absentmindedly standing there swinging the gun back and forth (not waving it around or brandishing). NOWHERE did I see the guy “pointing it at a couple of children” as the caller advised the dispatcher. And particularly since the guy was not engaged in any criminal activity, you can imagine his startled surprise when a bunch of trigger-happy PoPo suddenly scream at him and then shoot…what…a tenth of a second later? Bad shoot. Bad caller. Criminal charges against all involved especially the 911 caller.

        • His girlfriend was there and he was talking to his ex. She was shopping and he was taking a private call. I know when I am at Walmart with my wife and she goes to pick out lipstick and nail polish, I head right over to the guns and ammo section and if I found a rifle just lying there I would start to play with it. That is not loitering.

        • Nate, I can tell that you have never went to the store for someone to grab a general item and then, when you make it to the store, you ask for specifics due to their incessant whining in the past when you grabbed the “wrong” thing.

      • “superior tactical position and cover”
        what am i even reading? the cops were supposed to take shelter behind the ktity litter? its believed he has a rifle. unless the next aisle is filled with engine blocks they don’t have cover, and i dont know what kind of superior position they’re supposed to have given he’s at the corner of 2 aisles.

        • Kitty litter is bentonite. I’d fill a 5 gal clearing bucket with it. Probably cheaper than sand. Probably just as effective.

        • I imagine that kitty litter behaves a lot like sand, and as such would probably be one of the best pieces of cover that one could have.

        • That corner would give him visual superiority if he wasn’t on the phone- innocently oblivious to the impending doom.

          I am no expert at tactical situations nor strategy. I am just calling it how I saw it. I wasn’t there, but in my layman, non-LEO, non-combat experienced, non-expert opinion, I think they could have spent a bit more time talking to him to determine his threat level.

          Metal shelving, bags of food, and litter provides some soft cover, or at least concealment vs victim being out in the open. Officers have the advantage of perpendicular lanes of fire or a crossfire (i.e. they had him flanked).

    • From the video I don’t see this as a tough call, it looks an awful lot like someone got trigger happy. As far as I can tell there was no perceivable immediate threat to anyone. Based on the report I can totally see coming in thinking that something bad was going down, but the responders didn’t seem to verify anything before pulling the trigger. Honestly, if the 911 caller was looking at these video feeds, he should probably be be brought up on charges himself. The video clearly shows he never pointed anything at kids as they were walking in the same aisle, at the same time (presumably the video is lined up with audio) as the caller was telling the operator the opposite.

      • The more I listen to Richie, the more I hate that piece of shit. Did you notice that at the time the two kids were in the same isle was when Crawford was absolutely motionless with the gun? But the lying ass-wipe says clearly time synced with the video “he just pointed it at two children”. The gun was hanging straight down to the floor and not even swinging at that point. If George Zimmerman was a bad guy. this punk Richie is Charles Manson.

        Anyone watching this get the idea that if you were in the same situation and that it warranted a 911 call that you would run to the storefront screaming for a manager and maybe warning people that “There is a guy with a rifle! Get outside! Run!”, and if it didn’t warrant a 911 call but you were suspicious of the guy that you would walk to the storefront and ask to speak to the manager to voice your concern?

    • The guy making the 911 call is clearly to blame. He skewed the picture. He saw kids walk by the guy and did not describe Crawford’s or the kids demeanors which would have been critical.

    • We were hired for our shooting skills only.

      We’re cops, we’re cool.

      We don’t get paid to think or assess.

      The guy had it coming to him.

      Besides, officer safety.

      • Police are supposed to give their lives while on the job if they have to. They are not to run in guns blazing, shotting down anyone that looks to be a threat to them. They should quit the job if they don’t want to risk their health and life.

    • Having watched the whole thing Mr. Richie certainly made statements that are inconsistent with what was shown on the video. His statements certainly escalated the situation beyond what it should have been. I’d really like to know what angle he was seeing things from because from the camera angle his response and what I was seeing didn’t line up.

      • He’s a liar who even lied about being an ex-marine.

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

        ““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.

        Ritchie told several reporters after the 5 August shooting that he was an “ex-marine”. When confronted with his seven-week service record, however, he confirmed that he had been quickly thrown out of the US marine corps in 2008 after being declared a “fraudulent enlistment”, over what he maintains was simply a mixup over his paperwork.”

        • He wanted to murder people as a Marine, but he couldn’t do that. The government says he lied to them. He clearly lied to 9-1-1 and to the media after the shooting. There is zero reason to believe this guy. He should be brought up on charges for the death of Crawford.

  2. We should have a library of these types of LEO shootings, some solid, some borderline, to use when a regular citizen has a DGU as an analog for the DA or jury to compare.
    Of course this assume equal treatment for equal event scenario.
    But in this case WTF are you doing taking a pellet gun to a different part of the store?

    • That was my argument on the other websites. I judge good shoot bad shoot based on what the law would allow me to do to protect myself or others.
      Guaran-God damn-tee you I am doing 15 to life for this same act.

    • Couldn’t raise the vid on TTAG, went to another site
      I recently purchased an air gun at Walmart, every thing was in boxes.
      Did he take it out of he box? work the action( I assume a mid gun break action like a Gammo)

      Arriving officer might have had different assessment of the situation if he was still in the sporting departments gun isle. He was “walking around” with it out of box. WHY??????????

      He put himself in harms way.

      • Gentlemen, he was killed because of a series of lies told to police by serial liar Ronald Ritchie. It’s possible some kid already opened the box and left it on the shelf that way.

        He did nothing to deserve what happened to him.

      • If he put himself in harms’ way, then every OCer who straps his/her rifle across the chest is in harm’s way. If you argue that since he took the bb gun into a different part of the store, he should not have been there since there was no reason for him to be there; you are making the same argument grabbers make about people walking into Starbucks with weapons. You know why people do it? ‘Merica. Cuz we can, and we don’t deserve to get gunned down for it.

        Best and Brightest, I have to ask it since it is the 500 pound gorilla in the room; how many of us think that the 911 call would have been made if the person had been white? How many of us think the police might have been a bit more restrained had the man been white. I hate to say it, but I think we should admit that there is a racial double standard in the judicial system, and it is not making our nation a better place.

        • Making the nation a better place, man thats a hoot. Maybe we the people are trying, maybe. Government sure isnt, the gubment wants China part two, its the damned constitution and american pride thats gets in the way of “their” plans for ONE WORLD ORDER, racism is perpetuated by this government to create mistrust in cultures. They shoot more blacks to keep racism in our face, bad publicity is better then no publicity at all.Cop hating, black hating, whitey hating, chink, gook,mezkn,raghead hating, its “them” the NEW WORLD ORDER we should hate. Who are ” they”? every leader of every country and all their minions. Wars are started to continue the hate,famine,disease, poverty and religions control the masses. No WE ARE NOT TRYING TO MAKE A BETTER NATION.

    • Unfortunately, this is generally not one of the stats that PDs are tracking and reporting well (another one is the use of SWAT teams, which they’re not reporting at all!). A crucial component of the LEO reform in this country would be full transparency: we need to know how often police officers use violence, and why (both in their words, as well as objective facts and background).

  3. Well, this IS Beavercreek. I’m not saying there’s a bunch of racist rich white folk that live there, but there are a bunch of racist rich white folk that live there. They probably thought he was some “riff-raff” from Dayton.

  4. the 911 caller should be charged as an accessory if not with the murder outright.

    however, his bad actions do not lessen the bad actions of the officer.

    the officer seemingly made zero attempt to validate the 911 call, and faced no threat from the suspect. no running, screaming citizens, no bloody trail or dead bodies. much like the office building SWATing a couple weeks back, or the Texas woman and kids on a dark highway before that, nothing in the real world supports the 911 call, but the officer never changes his opinion of the events.

    had the suspect pointed/raised the gun….good shoot
    had the suspect run away/towards…probably a good shoot.

    as it is, there appears to be no recognition of the officer’s presence by the suspect until the officer has already fired.

    then….the officer lies about his and the suspect’s actions after the fact

    Caller goes to jail as an accessory
    Cop gets the chair.

    • Crawford looked toward the police when they shouted at him. He got very scared and started to make a sudden movement as he yelled, “it’s a toy.” As he was starting to move the police shouted, “put it down”. Before Crawford finished his sentence the policeman fired 2 rounds as Crawford dropped the gun and fell behind the shelf. He got back up (yelling in pain it seems) as he tried to run away.

      • Correction, I meant to say:

        The police shouted, “put it down”. Crawford looked toward the police when they shouted at him. He got very scared and started to make a sudden movement as he yelled, “it’s a toy.” Before Crawford finished his sentence the policeman fired 2 rounds as Crawford dropped the gun and fell behind the shelf. He got back up (yelling in pain it seems) as he tried to run away.

  5. To answer the question posted above…
    No. My view has not changed after seeing the video. As a matter of fact, it played out exactly like I envisioned it. I wanted to see it and I was rooting for the cops to have cause but…didn’t see it there.

    Notice Mr Crawford did not open a box and take out the gun. Walmart was sloppy and a man died. They are to blame for not cleaning up the shelf where you store guns. Yes, a pellet gun is a gun. That area needs to be monitored 24 hours a day.

  6. Viewed over the length of time in the video, the perp’s actions did not seem consistent with any type of normal shopping or product-selection activities, and given the fact that he took the gun to a different department of the store, and waited there while waving it around, shouldering it, and (by the witness’s account) pointing it at other people, then I don’t think it was unreasonable to think he meant to do harm with it. His staying in one location inside the store, and the fact that he selected a corner aisle area (which restricts any avenues of approach to two directions, from four in more open areas) is consistent with pending gun-related action. My guess is: a poor attempt to make the local news (while still living through it), or suicide-by-cop, in which case he succeeded.

      • Hey, I have an idea; how about you address the points I made in my explanation, one-by-one, rather than reacting like a non-thinking emotional basket-case?

        • Please also note that he is standing in the Pet department, not Sporting Goods or Toys, where a reasonable person might expect to see an air-gun or similar “fake-yet-kind-of-real-looking” gun. If you watch him closely, you can see him literally swinging it around, up and down, like he’s bored and waiting for something; also not consistent with “trying out” an airsoft or BB gun.

        • Irrelevant. I saw a kid ride a skateboard from the toy department in the electronics area. The rifle was an open box item that could have been left anywhere in the store and had Ron Richie never been born then I doubt Crawford would have returned the gun to the proper aisle after ending his phone call and leaving unharmed.

        • Okay fine:
          1. The perp’s actions did not seem consistent with any type of normal shopping or product-selection activities.
          Really? You’ve never seen people wandering around stores while on the phone? The phone makes people oblivious to everything around them.

          2.He took the gun to a different department of the store…
          Oh, so when you go to WalMart, you check out in each department before moving on?

          3. …and waited there while waving it around, shouldering it, and (by the witness’s account) pointing it at other people, then I don’t think it was unreasonable to think he meant to do harm with it.

          First, the witness has proven unreliable. Second, I see a dude playing with a gun like every young male who’s played FPSs or cops ‘n robbers would — except maybe the people here. To a non-shooter, an unloaded BB gun is a toy. He probably never imagined how it might look to others.

          4. His staying in one location inside the store, and the fact that he selected a corner aisle area (which restricts any avenues of approach to two directions, from four in more open areas) is consistent with pending gun-related action.

          EXCEPT THAT HE’S ON THE PHONE THE WHOLE TIME. Not exactly the MO of someone planning an attack.

          5. My guess is: a poor attempt to make the local news (while still living through it), or suicide-by-cop, in which case he succeeded.

          I shouldn’t even dignify this, but have you watched suicide-by-cop footage? Those people make shows of themselves. Crawford is keeping to himself. You may want to rethink your analysis.

        • Much better, Rokurota; thanks for the time and effort you put into your response.

          1. Yes, I have seen people wander around a store while on the phone. I will say that I couldn’t tell by watching the video that he was on the phone, so I don’t think it was as obvious as you think it was, however, I’m guessing that the witness might have been able to see it, and if so, should have reported it to 911.

          However, the cops did not know this, and even if they did, it may not have made a difference. Remember that last line, as it’s going to come up again.

          2. Taking a product that is out of the package to another part (distant corner) of the store, and just fiddling around with it while I’m yakking on the phone? No, I don’t do that, nor do I think many (any?) other people do it. It did mean that the responding cops found a guy with an unpackaged gun-looking object, in a department where there are no gun-looking objects.

          3. I am not relying on the witness’s statement about him swinging it around; I can see it for myself on the video. I’d sure like to see a larger format video so I could make out more details, but it wouldn’t matter to the responding cops; even if they had watched a bit of the security video before making contact, they would have seen a person swinging around what looks like a non-packaged gun, in a non-gun department, in a secluded corner of the store.

          4. Nothing in the act of using a phone prevents a person from shooting a gun; it might make them less effective at it, but it could also be a sign of coordination between multiple shooters in the same location. Again, it wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) matter to the cops, one way or the other.

          5. I doubt you have anything other than anecdotal evidence on the relative frequency of showboating vs. more privately committing suicide-by-cop, but I’ll allow you to present your peer-reviewed statistical evidence anyway.

          If a person is walking down the side of the road yakking on their phone, and they suddenly turn and walk into traffic, we don’t charge the driver of the vehicle that hits them with murder (usually; I’m sure this is a case or two SOMEWHERE, but I’d equally sure there will be extenuating circumstances accompanying it).

          The cops were working off the info they had, closing in on what appeared to be an armed subject acting strangely, at close range, and didn’t wait to get shot before shooting. Yeah, they might get a civil rights charge/conviction out of it, but I see absolutely no criminal intent or negligence.

        • Rokurota said:
          “I shouldn’t even dignify this, but have you watched suicide-by-cop footage? Those people make shows of themselves.”

          I have, and you’re right; almost every one THAT WE’VE SEEN ON VIDEO was showboating. Do you think that the video/news camera being present might have had anything to do with that? If you think that EVERY suicide-by-cop goes down like those you’ve seen on video, well, you might want to ask a few cops about that.

        • “1. Yes, I have seen people wander around a store while on the phone. I will say that I couldn’t tell by watching the video that he was on the phone, so I don’t think it was as obvious as you think it was, however, I’m guessing that the witness might have been able to see it, and if so, should have reported it to 911.

          However, the cops did not know this, and even if they did, it may not have made a difference. Remember that last line, as it’s going to come up again.”

          The witness was aware he was on the phone, and even reported it to the 911 operator.

          No offense, but you seem to be saying a lot of stuff without knowing the available facts first. Listen to the call associated with the video. I’ve seen many people do a lot of dumb and absent-minded things while on cell phones… most annoyingly while driving a car.

        • Misnomer says:
          “I’ve seen many people do a lot of dumb and absent-minded things while on cell phones… most annoyingly while driving a car.”

          And for some of them, it costs them (or someone else) their life.

          You can add this guy to that list.

          I’ll also note that many of you are assuming that the witness (and perhaps, the cops) had the same unblinking God’s-eye view of the suspect that the security camera did, for the duration of his wanderings around the store. I’ll mention that if I was watching someone’s strange behavior in this type of circumstance, that I wouldn’t be standing still in plain view and staring at him; I’d be WAY down an aisle and around the corner, leaning-out or occasionally walking out to see what was happening every now and then, then reporting it to 911. In the enlarged video, I can see at several points, he has both hands on the gun while fiddling with it, so he either stopped talking or put the phone under his chin or something. If one of those moments are when the witness peeked out, it would sure have seemed like an escalation to me.

        • This may get me banned from TTAG but I have just about had enough of your crap.
          You are such a stupid m***** f***** that you just equated distracted driving to distracted holding a pellet gun next to a bag of dog food. As if he deserved his fate. Here’s a clue: when ten people call you an idiot…you might want to shut up.

        • How about the simple fact that there was 4+ minutes of him doing nothing. No shots. No panic. How often does a mass shooting start off with 4 minutes in the area doing nothing. Stupid police…as usual.

        • doesky2 says:

          “How about the simple fact that there was 4+ minutes of him doing nothing. No shots. No panic. How often does a mass shooting start off with 4 minutes in the area doing nothing.”

          Wow. How about every time? Think about it; the ENTIRE PREVIOUS LIFE of anyone who is involved in ANY shooting is, by your somewhat broad definition, “doing nothing”, right up until he is “doing something” (shooting people). In most cases, we don’t know how long someone is “in the area” prior to a shooting, and because this claim is also rather broad, it’s difficult to answer that portion of your statement.

    • Are you a LE? Are you one of the LE “officers” involved with this shooting? I ask because that is the most absolutely laughable piece of shakily rationalized bullshit that I have probably ever read on the entire internet. Ever. For real, not even kidding. I feel like I just read something off of a conspiracy sight linking JFK’s assassination to the lizard people overlords that really control the earth’s governments. smh

        • “…non-thinking emotional basket case”, to enlarge the quote. That’s the evaluation you get when you state you’d like to punch someone in the nose for expressing a differing opinion of a fluid situation. That, sir, is an irrational response, and I can only hope you are not a gun owner or carrier, because with that short of a fuse, one day we’ll probably be deconstructing one of your violent episodes, if it’s lucky enough to be captured on video.

        • You want me to expand the quote yet you flat out misstate my comments. I did not say I would like to punch you in the nose. Let me paste the entire quote so everyone can see how you lie.
          “Oh my God! I said this would be polarizing but you went so far to the other end that I could turn around and punch you in the nose.”
          It is a geography metaphor, meaning you are so far away from the truth that I can reach you by turning the opposite direction. I would not like to punch you any more than I like disproving your ignorant statements. Both actions would be wasted on someone that won’t learn.

      • No Dale, I’m not a cop, and have never been a cop. As a firearms instructor, I used to hang-out with cops and cop trainers, have been run through FATS simulators and real people force-on-force training sims more than a few times, and have had to make some of the split-second shoot/no-shoot decisions that these set-ups simulate so well. Having done that, and knowing the professional victim organizations that jump on every shooting, good OR bad, you couldn’t pay me enough to be a cop in this day and age.

        • So basically, you’re not a cop, but you’re in the business of training them, so it’s still your money speaking.

        • No, I’m not a cop instructor either. If you read what I wrote, above, I was careful to separate my being a firearm instructor from the cop instructors. Let me clarify further: I do not provide instruction for any type of law enforcement personnel or agencies, in any manner, unless individual personnel sign-up for a basic- or intermediate-level firearms course on their own time, in which case I do not know that they are cops. Just another range-rat and competitive shooter, hanging with folks that shared similar interests. If you’re nice enough, you get to shoot and play with really cool toys.

          And if you were in same room and it was really, really quiet, you probably still could not hear any of my “money speaking”, LOL.

    • Or he just went to an unoccupied corner of the store so he could actually hear the person he was on the phone with. But who am i kidding – that almost never happens in real life.

      • This comment deserves more attention. Pretty much describes what I see in the vid–a guy on the phone, fiddling with the air gun in a quiet part of the store.

  7. that guy on the phone gave 911 some absolutely terrible intel… No one near him, not pointing the pellet gun at anything except for the shelf in front of him, etc. The cops came in thinking they were stopping a mass murderer.

    • Exactly what kind of “thinking” is involved to think that a mass murder is occurring with a rifle when no shots are being fired?

  8. Did they even attempted to contact him and tell him to drop the weapon? I saw the cop pie the corner and fire.

    • Any move you make will get you aerated. He heard shouting “show me your hands” “drop it drop it”, turned his head to see what the commotion was and BANG BANG! Bleeding to death and in agony, he crawls to get to safety as he fears, rightly so, that he is being assaulted. The other cop heads him off down the other isle and in one last desperate move to escape, he is able to get to his feet to flee the attacker only to run into the second attacker. At that point, he knows he is going to die and drops to the floor and at that point first realizes that the person that just shot him is a police officer.

  9. Wow.

    If the call and the video are time synchronized (which they seem to be relatively close), this situation, in my opinion, was caused by the caller falsely relaying what was happening in the store. He exaggerated and flat out lied about what was happening.

    I can’t absolve the officers responding from not adequately assessing the situation before deploying lethal force but this was caused and escalated by the caller.

    He will likely be easily be charged in civil court by the families of both man who was shot and the woman who died during the store evacuation. I would be surprised if he doesn’t get charged under negligent homicide or worse.

    Perhaps the in store audio would help understand the response of the officers but it seems as if the decision to shoot was made very quickly from just the video.

    No one in that Walmart should have died that day if not through the direction, seemingly malicious, actions of the caller. Instead, two clearly innocent people are dead.

    • I’ll bet good money Ronnie Ritchie thought he was SWAT’ing a long gun open carrier.
      1) Walmart is well know for being a place to do your first open carry walk.
      2) If you were looking to go out of your way to SWAT someone for open carry Walmart would be a good place.
      3) Ritchie flat out lies about what is happening, and is now recanting because the video shows what really happened. Further I’ll bet he has lawyer’s up.
      4) If Ritchie really feared this guy was a shooter why stalk him around the store with wife in tow. seems more like a guy that wants to watch the SWAT’ing go down.
      5) I wonder if Ritchie is a fan of Mike Malloy
      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/06/robert-farago/radio-host-mike-malloy-kill-open-carrier/

      His actions directly caused the death of two people, he should be charged in both deaths, I hope he’s happy with himself.

  10. The original caller definitely needs to feel some serious repercussions, for his actions directly led to the death of Crawford. Is everyone such a coward these days you can’t ask a weirdo in Walmart “hey man what’re you doing?”. As for the cops, I’m gonna speculate that they really, really wanted a “Hero Cop Stops Mass Shooting” headline. What a terrible clusterf##k this is.

    • I work with a 70 year old lady with a bad hip. A customer came in and said “there’s somebody with a rifle on your front step”. The little old lady walked out the front door and asked this person with the rifle “is there something I can help you with?”

      The person with a rifle was waiting for a friend to pick her up so they could go squirrel hunting.

      If she can confront a person with a rifle calmly and confidently there is no reason in the world for these hyper-paranoid psycho reactions we see.

  11. This reminds me of the shooting of Erik Scott at a Costco in 2010. Reportedly, cops shot him while his pistol was holstered. I say reportedly because for some reason both the Costco surveillance video and the 911 call recording experienced technical glitches and were unable to be retrieved.

    Again, the 911 caller – this time I believe a Costco employee – allegedly reported an enhanced interpretation of Erik Scott’s actions.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/?s=costco+shooting

    Given that Crawford wasn’t exhibiting normal shopping behavior, this may be a suicide by cop. He grabbed what could easily be mistaken for a rifle, went to a somewhat secluded area of the store and just seemed to wait.

    • Did you watch the video? Classic bored guy fiddling with something while on the phone behavior. He had not the remotest clue anyone thought he was doing anything out of line until he realized he was being rushed by the cops. In the footage that follows him from the time they pulled into the parking lot, he’s wandering around with the gun passing people, and I didn’t notice anyone even giving him a second look. Apparently only the nutjob who called it in was worried. Definitely not suicide by cop.

      Ronald Ritchie murdered that guy. The cops contributed, but they were set up. Maybe they shouted warnings the phone didn’t pick up, I dunno, but they wouldn’t have been so quick on the trigger if Ritchie hadn’t created a scenario where they were dealing with a dangerous gunman. Crawford wandering around with a pellet gun isn’t the brightest move, admittedly, but doing something stupid should not carry the death penalty, and he clearly never imagined it would.

  12. Don’t these guns have packaging? A rather large and obvious backing card or a box? Seems like a very sad intersection of frightened cops and a very naive young man.

    • Yes. A pellet gun is not a toy. It is not behind a counter like center fire rifles but they are boxed and a security device is locked onto the package. This looked like someone returned the item and a lazy employee just restocked it open. There is another video on BA that shows the beginning where he finds the cool looking gun just sitting on a shelf and starts playing with it.
      I guess he all of a sudden got the urge to commit suicide and just happened to have a guy call 911 and lie to them about his actions and then not even point the gun at anybody including the police as others have suggested.

      • Once again, the “God’s eye view” rears its ugly head.

        Just because you have seen the video loop of every single one of his previous actions after-the-fact, you irrationally assume that the cops had this information in advance of the tragic ending, like you did.

        They did not. They COULD not.

        Hindsight is 20-20; digitally-enhanced loop-viewable hindsight is probably closer to 20-10.

        • Once again…irrelevant. The fact that the rifle was left out in the open has no bearing on what information the cops had. That is right, but that is not what we were talking about when you butted in to spread your ignorance again. You make it more difficult to debate the facts when you obfuscate matters by taking things out of context. It is obvious who on here are trying to find the truth and who has already made up his mind and when the facts are against you, you bring up things that are not germane to the specific subject.

    • Oh goody, I get to re-use a previous response!

      Once again, the “God’s eye view” rears its ugly head.

      Just because you have seen the video loop of every single one of his previous actions after-the-fact, you irrationally assume that the cops had this information in advance of the tragic ending, like you did.

      They did not. They COULD not.

      Hindsight is 20-20; digitally-enhanced loop-viewable hindsight is probably closer to 20-10.

        • The enhanced view I was referring to was the dual-camera-image video, with the 911 call audio added. I really can’t describe how much I believe this contaminates a person’s view of a situation like this one. Most of my viewpoints and opinions are based on how the cops reacted, based and what THEY KNEW at the time they responded. Most of what I am hearing and seeing here seems to largely be based on what evidence these posters have seen, all cobbled neatly together, after the fact. And after they’ve experienced the god’s eye view, how it (apparently) becomes nearly impossible for them to honestly evaluate the actions of the arriving officers. I know there are bad cops out there, and I share people’s frustrations with them and their actions. There is absolutely NO evidence, based on what they knew and when they knew it, and how the circumstances went down, that these cops are among those rare bad apples.

          Sorry to have confused you with the enhanced-view thing, but I imagine you’re used to it…

        • One thing I am not confused about is that no matter how much information you are privy to, you will still side with the cops. Doesn’t seem like you are being objective. Would you have shot a man standing at the end of a hallway in a store for swinging a rifle in one hand while talking on the phone with the other hand? Your answer determines whether you are a murderer or a sane responsible citizen.

        • And now you demonstrate that you don’t know the difference between police, where the job description is literally to go LOOKING for trouble when called upon to do so, and an armed private citizen, who’s primary responsibility is to defend himself and/or his family with violence only after every other non-violent option has been exhausted, or cannot be safely exercised.

        • Supreme court ruled that police have no obligation to protect other people.
          Had they “gone looking” for trouble, they would not have found trouble. They went looking to shoot a guy holding a rifle. Please make an argument that makes sense because you are boring me.

        • SCOTUS has ruled that police have no duty to protect SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS. The police DO have a duty to protect the public at large, through their assigned actions and within the law. More confusion on your part; or is it something else? Maybe bending the facts to make your (weak-ass) point?

          If you’re bored, return to your COD or WOW game, where you might be able to impress SOMEONE with your opinion (’cause it ain’t happening here).

      • Their job is to act based on the information that they have, in such a manner that the safety of citizens is prioritized. This means not shooting first when there’s a clear lack of clarity, even if that puts them at a risk. They are being paid to risk; they are not supposed to offload the costs to ordinary citizens. We hire cops to be more safe around them, not for them to be safe at the expense of our safety.

        • If, as a responding officer, you wait for a “clear lack of clarity” (whatever the hell THAT is), and the perp IS an armed bad guy, you will get shot and possibly die. In those few seconds where you have to fight through your own adrenaline reaction, make critical decisions, and, if necessary, take a shot, you do the best you can. And most folks who understand the dynamics of this type of situation will support the cops’ best efforts, even if they SEEM to fall short in some cases, because the alternative is to let good cops die or go to jail, and then try to replace them with more good cops, which you may have noticed, are getting more and more rare.

        • Wrong again, but why am I not surprised?

          Did a cop make the 911 call? Calls like that are how cops get into dangerous situations, and they do so willingly to help protect society at large, even though it includes mouthy unthankful d-bags like you.

  13. It wasn’t reported as much (if at all) in the mainstream news, but Ronald Ritchie killed two people with his false statements that day. The innocent man with a toy gun who the police shot and Angela Williams, a nurse and a mother who was about to get married. When the police started shooting she ran to protect her kid and collapsed and died shortly later. In my opinion Ronald Ritchie is guilty of a double homicide. The police should have given Crawford a warning and a chance to put his gun down before shooting, and they should be punished for not doing so. But I doubt they would have gone in shooting if Mr. Ritchie had given an accurate description of what he saw.

    http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/death-of-woman-at-walmart-shooting-called-devastat/ngwr8/

  14. Bad shoot, To quote part of a bearing arms article title… “Where Is The Race-Baiting “Civil Rights” Community?”

  15. Proverbs 6:16-19

    16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

    17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

    18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

    19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

    • Even as an agnostic I am quite familiar with this section of Proverbs (though my KJV bible has a very slightly different interpretation.) I remember it well from my childhood studies. It’s depressingly apropos, given the situation.

      One of the myriad reasons why I, as someone without faith, still insists on my children attending church every Sunday and the occasional Wednesday…

      • And… My bad…
        My KJV reads the same, my daughter’s New International which I had grab reads differently. I hadn’t realized hers wasn’t a King James version. Trip out.

        • ‘One of the myriad reasons why I, as someone without faith, still insists on my children attending church every Sunday and the occasional Wednesday…’ I feel the same way. Man, if you were in Tennessee I would really like to get to know you. I have not found many men whom have this same POV and sometimes I wish I had someone to talk to.

  16. After watching the video I can only say bad shoot. The first thing that struck me was that considering that it was a 911 call about a guy supposedly loading up a rifle and pointing it at people (not sure why someone would wait until they were not only at the place they intended to shoot up to load their weapon of choice but whatever), the caller seemed pretty calm. For those commenting that it was suspicious that he took it to a different part of the store… Really? So how do you shop? I don’t go to the register after every aisle. I fail to see where he pointed it at anyone. As for waving it around, seems his ‘waving’ is fairly consistent with someone just distractedly playing with something in their hands while having a phone conversation. Aside from the physical description,the rest seemed inconsistent with anything that the guy was doing. I see nothing that appears to be loading a weapon. I fail to see how he could’ve complied with any order given by police given the time from initial contact to shots fired. I’ll finish with a big fuck you to the clown who made the call. Ex-Marine. Really? Did not finish boot camp. The reason doesn’t matter. The title Marine is earned. At no point in time is a recruit allowed to claim being a Marine until graduation. I have personally see what happens when a DI hears someone claiming the title during boot camp. Many hours in the pit and on the quarter deck attempting to make the walls sweat. Had he completed boot, I might have been convinced to give him some slack, not much mind you, but some.

  17. More like “Shoot first, ask for paid leave later”. Might be an argument for increasing vacation time for LEO. Watch for next round of contract talks…

  18. From what I saw, the pellet gun was unboxed and on the shelf. He picked it up and wandered the store with it. At certain points he was waving it around but I never saw it pointed in a purposely threatening manner. When he was in the pet area he was messing around with it, some say loading it but it could have been just messing around with the area you load it in. I didn’t see him with a box of bb’s or a tin of pellets, but it isn’t the highest quality video to get that detail. Some people walked into the aisle and left about 10 seconds later, because he had the gun? or was he talking loudly on the phone? or did they realize what they wanted wasn’t in that isle? They didn’t appear to run away screaming. It looked like the police yelled to him and almost immediately shot him. Just what I am seeing. My thoughts are:

    Don’t walk around with a pellet gun out of the box.
    Don’t wave it around. None of these justify being shot when you have not raised the gun or threatened the police.

    However, noone had been shot or threatened by the time the police arrived. This would imply that it wasn’t someone who is looking to shoot the place up. There were no reports of ‘shots fired’ until the cops shot him. From what I have seen, I would say it’s a ‘bad shoot’ but not to the level of murder. I also believe that if any of us had done the same we would be facing murder charges. Just how I see it. I do wonder if it was a middle aged white guy would the police be as quick to shoot? I would hope the behavior would be the same, but I do wonder.

    • As a carrying private citizen, if you were in Wal-Mart and another shopper told you there was a guy in the pets aisle waving a gun around, trying to load it, and pointing it at children and your reaction was to run over there and shoot him dead no questions asked, you would without question be charged with murder and most likely convicted.

  19. Isnt this what all the anti gunners said theyd do to the open carriers? Call 911 and make accusations? On the cops end There doesnt appear to be any confrontation to get him to surrender ( assuming the radios are live during the call), and while I’ll agree that taking a bullet is a bad way to to confirm whether or not the gun is real. There is plenty of cover available to make that call. Bad shoot in a stupid situation.

    • Plenty of concealment, you mean. I see no “cover” (by the proper gun-related definition) where the suspect could have been watched and/or challenged. The stack of pet food bags MIGHT stop a bullet, but I wouldn’t bet my life on it, and I’m not sure you could see the suspect from a safe(r) point behind those bags.

      • in the left hand video it shows the entering cop behind a Pallet of kitty litter tubs, Id say that qualifies as cover in the ballistic definition.

  20. Here are my impressions from the video and audio:

    1. That was an execution. No warnings, no first-hand threat assessment, just charge in an kill. The decision to immediately kill was likely made before the officers entered the store.
    2. The 911 caller deserves as much or more blame than the police. He falsely described Crawford’s actions. Crawford did not point the gun at any children (or anyone else). Crawford did not do anything (at least that I saw on the video) that looked like loading a gun. After the amount of time that elapsed with Crawford doing nothing threatening and several people passing by Crawford without being threatened, the caller should have realized this was not an imminent threat. Based on how calm the caller was, I suspect he knew Crawford was not a threat, and was calling 911 for kicks.
    3. The 911 operator deserves blame too. She escalated the situation. She told someone (dispatch perhaps) that Crawford put bullets in the gun, when the most the caller said was it “looked like [Crawford] was trying to load the gun.” That’s a big difference in this situation. One says there’s a 911 caller who isn’t sure of what he’s seeing, the other says there is someone definitely getting ready to shoot. More importantly, the 911 operator should have also realized from the passage of time, the demeanor of the caller, and the lack of background noise, that the situation was quite likely not dangerous.

    • There is definitely culpability on the part of all three parties – caller, 911 operator, and the cops. Can you be convicted of 1/3 of a murder, I wonder?

      • So much that is FUBAR about this situation that I haven’t gotten around to the 911 operator yet. She seemed to be trying to get a clear image of the situation but dumbass Richie was not being clear. Then you can hear her relaying information to the police dispatcher or the cops on scene and it was not always accurate to what Richie said. For example, she asked “what is he doing now?” Richie said “looks like he is trying to load it”. She asks for confirmation and this is where things could have taken a different turn; “He loaded the gun?” “I don’t know, but it looked like that is what he was doing”. Then she says clearly to the cops “he loaded the gun”. WTF woman!? You just got him killed.

        • I agree that the 911 lady shares responsibility, but both she and the cops were reacting to the scenario Ronald Ritchie created. Ritchie was the primary actor, who set everything in motion. I don’t know if he was motivated by racism or sheer malice or what, but ultimately, he is the one who caused John Crawford III’s death. Maybe the fact that the operator mistakenly said that Crawford loaded the gun contributed, but the claim that Crawford was aiming the gun at people — at *children* — was all Ritchie. A guy with a loaded gun is one thing; someone aiming that gun at people is something else entire, and it’s Ritchie who turned Crawford into someone dangerous enough the police felt justified taking him down without giving him a chance to respond.

    • +2. Much easier to see, and viewer allows pause, rewind.

      No sound, and can’t see LEOs until they rush up the aisle, but by body language it looks like Crawford was caught by surprise, dropped the gun, and crouched to hide at end of the aisle, from first cop who was rushing down the right side aisle. Then he saw the cop coming up left side aisle, got up to run the other way, and startled the cop on right side as he ran around, and it *appears* that was when he was shot.

      I didnt see ANYTHING in Crawfords body language from his stroll from sporting goods to pet food section, indicating a threat, including “pointing at kids”. He looked like a doofus who picked up a toy, and was distractedly swinging it as he talked on the phone, and wasnt paying much attention to those around him.
      The slow and jerky security cam video makes it hard to interpret much more, but it almost looks as if Crawford was stoned. He certainly didnt use good judgement wandering around with the pellet gun, but if he had no experience with guns, except as a toy, or anyone to tell him not to handle it so carelessly in a public place, regardless, then this isnt much different than that shooting in CA, where the cops shot the 13 year old with the airsoft AR, walking down the sidewalk, when he turned to face them.

      The mom with shopping cart and the kids noticed him as maybe odd, swinging a gun in the corner of the pet food section, but for the short period of time we see them, they dont look panicked or threatened, and it doesnt look as if Crawford even looked their direction, much less pointed a gun at them. So I have no idea where Richie got the idea he was pointing a gun at kids, except possibly the woman or kids made a comment, along those lines.

      I cant judge caller Richie as I cant see where he was, what he saw, etc-
      but after watching the video of his interview, he does not come across as credible.
      Only he will know, and I suspect he will have a guilty conscience for the rest of his life, if he has one.

      • You need the audio. He did not crouch down behind the shelf. He was already shot by then. They snuck up on him and executed him. They shouted 1.5 seconds before shooting (just to make it legal). The time stamp is at 55 seconds when the first command is shouted and the shots ring out before 57 seconds.

  21. After extensive comment regarding the LEO, lets talk about Crawfords actions.
    He is 22 years old.
    He was in the pet dept.
    Does he have a pet?
    what are the reasonable explanations why he left the gun isle with it out of the box?
    Is everyone here saying that he shouldn’t/wouldn’t know that a gun in the pet isle is way out of place?
    All those condemning the cop, please explain why you would not have done what Crawford did.
    Could it be because it could get you shot?
    Tell me that his actions were just run of the mill natural.
    Did the cop watch 9 minutes of him harmlessly walking through the store, 9 fucking minutes?
    was it slung on his back like he was just 0C’ing
    When you are carrying, do you do think about how your actions will be assessed?
    Mr. Crawford apparently did not.
    That is the main reason he lost his life, perfect storm or not.
    Did he not contribute the main component.

    .

    • Well thank you Cap’n Obvious! If he had never gotten out of bed that day he would still be alive. Why don’t you go ahead and blame Crosman while you are at it for manufacturing a BB gun that looks like an assault rifle?

    • There are two main, roughly co-equal, reasons Crawford got shot and killed: 1) A 911 caller grossly overstated a possible threat; and 2) the police did nothing to verify first-hand the seriousness of the threat. Beyond that, there are many minor contributing factors. Not thinking enough about what it looks like to carry a pellet gun you picked up off the shelf in the sporting goods department around in the pet department is part of the causation chain, but is way, way down the causation chain compared to what the police and the 911 caller did.

      • “Not thinking enough about what it looks like to carry a pellet gun you picked up off the shelf in the sporting goods department around in the pet department is part of the causation chain, but is way, way down the causation chain compared to what the police and the 911 caller did.”

        I find it hard to believe you can say that, when carrying the weapon around in the store, with his hand on the grip, swinging it around, is what generated the 911 call and the police response to BEGIN with.

        If the gun was put back on the shelf, or was in a box/package, or was placed in a shopping cart, then you have no call, no police, nobody dead. Even if he had put it down after the first few minutes, there would have been no reason for the cops to shoot when they arrived.

        • No, but nice try. I said that his actions started and continued the chain of causation. I suppose that may be uncomfortable for people like you, who (apparently, based on your defense of this person’s actions) also do stupid things with guns on a regular basis.

        • Swinging the gun back and forth is a playful act not a threatening move. At this point it is clear that you have an issue with seeing the facts and making an objective decision. Have you ever seen the police at fault for an unjustified homicide? Because if you don’t see this as the best example of wrongful death, then the police can do no wrong. At this point, you have proven yourself to be a hate filled individual that has zero respect for individual life. You seem to be a socialist based on some of your statements. Here is one gem: “SCOTUS has ruled that police have no duty to protect SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS, even if called. The police DO have a duty to protect the public at large…”. So the individual has no specific rights but society does? SOCIALISM!

        • Reasonable/smart people do not “play” with guns, especially in public.

          You may call the protection doctrine Socialist, but if so, it’s good old American Socialism.
          Just because you don’t like it, or don’t think it’s right, doesn’t change reality.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

          Perhaps more on-pont, these lower court decisions:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

          “District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts’ dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine. The Court explained that ‘[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.’ ”

          http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/police-had-no-duty-protect-brooklyn-teen-judge-rules-2013-07-31-190000

          “The NYPD has a duty to protect the public at large and not a particular individual, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Sylvia Ash wrote in her ruling in the case.”

          http://www.sogpubs.unc.edu/cmg/cmg12.pdf

          “The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that the public duty doctrine, as it applies to local governments, is limited to “law enforcement departments when they are exercising their general duty to protect the public.” Individual victims of crime are not entitled to recover damages for the failure of law enforcement officers to prevent the crime from happening. The duty to prevent crime extends to the public generally and cannot be enforced by individuals against a city.”

          Further reading, because you obviously need it:
          Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 (1982)
          Cal. Govt. Code Sections 821,845,846
          Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
          Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
          Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
          Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
          Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
          Keane v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 567 (1977)
          Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
          Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)
          Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
          Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
          Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
          Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
          Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1977)
          Silver v. Minneapolis 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn, 1969)
          Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansvill, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.)
          Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep 339 (1980)
          Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
          Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)

        • Reasonable/smart people do not “play” with a gun at all, ESPECIALLY in public.

          Just because you don’t like the protection doctrine, or don’t think it’s right, doesn’t change reality. And if it’s Socialism, as you say, then it’s good old-fashioned American Socialism.

          Please find and read Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
          (no links for any of these because it will send this post into the Moderation queue)

          Perhaps more on-pont, these lower court decisions:
          Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

          “District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts’ dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine. The Court explained that ‘[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.’ ”

          Quotes from other, similar decisions by lower courts:

          “The NYPD has a duty to protect the public at large and not a particular individual, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Sylvia Ash wrote in her ruling in the case.”

          “The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that the public duty doctrine, as it applies to local governments, is limited to “law enforcement departments when they are exercising their general duty to protect the public.” Individual victims of crime are not entitled to recover damages for the failure of law enforcement officers to prevent the crime from happening. The duty to prevent crime extends to the public generally and cannot be enforced by individuals against a city.”

          Further reading, because you obviously need it:
          Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 (1982)
          Cal. Govt. Code Sections 821,845,846
          Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
          Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
          Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
          Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
          Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
          Keane v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 567 (1977)
          Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
          Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)
          Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
          Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
          Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
          Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
          Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1977)
          Silver v. Minneapolis 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn, 1969)
          Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansvill, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.)
          Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep 339 (1980)
          Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
          Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)

        • Sorry for the near-duplicate posts, folks. The first one contained links, so it went into Moderation, and I didn’t know how long it would be invisible, so I took out the links, made a few other changes, and re-posted.

        • …said the person who called me a Socialist for accurately describing current case law on the “duty to protect”. No more snide comments on THAT subject, I note.

          I think I’m done helping you demonstrate your ignorance on various topics, including the subject matter above, but feel free to keep it up, on your own. In that area, at least, you’re doing an absolutely wonderful job!

    • I’m sorry, did you actually say, “He was in the pet aisle. Does he have a pet?” What if he doesn’t? Are you intimating that Mr. Ritchie and/or the cops knew he doesn’t have a pet and therefore had no business being in the pet aisle and therefore was suspect and therefore needed to be shot?

      • Yes I stated some facts, and from there, asked questions.
        The answers to which may give us insight as to why this happened or could have been avoided.
        the question asked was if he was actually shopping for pet supplies.
        It tries to gage the level of strange behavior.
        If he was shopping for pet supplies I would say oh, that’s why he was in that corner of the store.
        If he was not shopping for other items why did he leave the gun isle? If he was going to check out and purchase the gun, why did he leave the box.
        Questions only, conclusions accusations and determinations follow from answers, you know like “If then else”
        Don’t mistake my questions as implied answers.
        My only conclusion is that the cop thought it was a deadly force situation based on bad intel with a bias towards detecting a threat and not enough to visually contradict his preconception. I have not concluded Crawford had bad intentions, just bad judgment.

        • Sincerely, I am sorry to have jumped the gun a bit. But that biz about “does he have a pet?” just kind of hit me wrong. #1, no one had any way of knowing if he has pet or not–or has a friend who has a pet, or uses kitty litter for oil-dri, In other words, the question really has nothing to do with what happened or why, just looks like an attempt to absolve the cops.

  22. So not only can you use a phone to commit suicide by cop, you can also use a phone to commit murder by cop.

    Precisely because of the sketchiness of eye-witness information, the cops should use more restraint when responding to calls (particularly when no shots have been fired). They responded to what they presumed would happen, rather than what was actually happening. And a man lost his life for it.

  23. Anyone notice the poor s.o.b. who came through the door after the ruckus? $1 says he buys his dog food at Target next time.

  24. Here’s how you deal with it without killing anyone you don’t have to:

    From the intercom while watching the camera feed from the security office, “will the man in Pets carrying what appears to be a firearm please put it down and walk away from it”.

    Then see what he does. Proceed from there.

  25. First, pellet guns aren’t loaded anywhere near the same way a real gun loads.
    Second, the officers didn’t even tell him to or give him the opportunity to put the pellet gun down. They fired as soon as they saw him.

    The 911 caller should face charges,

    • That seems to be the consensus but I doubt that happens. Civil court is a great option. Burden of proof is not as important and if common sense people get on the jury, they may see the flaws in the system that we see and award Crawford’s family a great some. The police, 911, Walmart, and Ron Richie should all be named in the suit. I am against frivolous law suits but there is nothing frivolous about death.

      • I guess you don’t have to shoot anyone yourself if you can so easily weaponize the emergency/law-enforcement systems into doing it for you.

    • Would you be able to identify this as a pellet gun at a distance?

      http://www.crosman.com/airguns/rifles/pump/30117

      Based on the 911 call, the officers were expecting a crazy person pointing a loaded “black rifle” at children. They probably went into this expecting another Newtown.

      Still, the man does not appear to have been even facing the police officer when he fired. The cops do not come out of this looking great, but I think at least 51% of the blame is on the caller. He should at least be subjected to public scorn.

  26. WTF did I just watch? Why was he standing in the corner? Was he baiting? There is no logical explanation for this! Something is wrong here.

    • He was on the phone. That was reported almost two months ago. I suspect people were looking at him oddly for playing with the pellet gun so he went to stand somewhere out of the way. Little did he know that Richie was following him and ginning up the police.

  27. They gave him no time to drop the gun, from what I saw. Many here are saying the same thing, and it’s nice to see people here really speaking their mind honestly in that regard instead of taking a “tough shit for him” stance. I was just in Walmart yesterday in Naples, Florida, looking over the pellet guns that resemble AR 15s. They were all boxed up – tight.

    Why this cat decided to unbox one and walk around with it is the $64,000.00 question. Tough call on this one, as others have said, but no way would I ever open carry at this point.

    • Go see the full video on other sights. He does not open a box. Walmart allowed the rifle to lay unsecured and Mr. Crawford just picked it up and started playing with it to pass the time while talking to his ex on the phone. His new girlfriend was there with him and he may have just been waiting for her to get her shopping done.

      • Too late for this guy but that needs to change. Anything without an orange tip (which includes pellet and BB guns) should be secured so people can’t just pick them up and wander around with them. And if a shopper wants to buy, they should be boxed up and taped up before they leave the area. Kind of what MY FFL did when I bought an AK in downtown Key West because, well open carry is illegal in Florida. Kind of brings us back to the question of whether open carry should be legal. If it’s gonna be legal, it needs to be legal across the US and cops need to expect that some open carriers aren’t bad guys…

  28. situation sucks major. terrible 911 call.

    however, we are all sitting in our homes or offices and watching this from weeks away. Can I say I would have dropped the guy? probably not. Seems like trying to get him on the PA or attempt commands from distance might have been a better call.

    However, If i’m the officer who got the report that a man with a black rifle (read: can defeat my vest) is loading up, waiving and pointing his weapon around, brandishing at children (he didn’t appear to be in this video, but that is the information this officer had) and when i approach him he doesn’t immediately freeze effing solid, I’m probably gonna put a few on him myself.

    whole thing sucks. officer did what he had to do.

    • You were doing pretty well until the end. How would he have known to “freeze solid” when he was approached from the rear? You have to command the person to drop the weapon and give him time to comply. But first, you have to get his attention. He was not facing the police so he never saw it coming. The rifle was pointing the ground and the police had their guns trained on him. They had time to fire if he raised the gun, which he did not.

      • “They had time to fire if he raised the gun, which he did not.”

        Spoken like a person who truly does not understand that Action almost always beats Reaction.

        If you’d like to learn something, you can try it yourself. Get a couple of airsoft guns (and eye protection!), set up a friend with one set of gun and goggles, then you aim at him from 10-20 feet away. Tell him to decide to pull up and shoot you as quickly as he can, at an unpredictable moment (like when you are talking to him, giving him commands). Even if you are aiming at him, ready to fire at any hint of threatening movement (which you MUST evaluate; not just any movement means you can shoot him), he’ll get a hit on you BEFORE you can shoot him, far more often than not.

        • Right! That’s why, if a cop thinks that you have a gun, he should just shoot you, before you maybe possibly can shoot him! Because officer safety is the primary concern here, and who cares about a few dead “civilians”.

        • The gun never came close to being pointed at the officers. Watch the video. By your logic, cops should shoot every person carrying a gun on sight. Wonder why that doesn’t always happen? Oh yeah! Some cops are better than that.
          As for your challenge, I accept. My reaction time is less than 0.2 seconds. I won’t need half of that to drop your ass if I have my sights trained on you and am indexing the trigger and you are in low ready. If we tie at 0.5 seconds, you miss and I hit center mass double tap. And I am not a trained LEO. I would expect them to be as efficient. We give them guns and turn them lose on society so there should be a level of expectation above a non LEO.

        • …aaaaand another reference to the god’s-eye-view, as seen calmly from your desktop, laptop, or tablet, while you relax with a beverage.

          In competition, I beat many folks over and over again who I flat-out KNEW were far better, and faster, shooters than I was. The difference was they did not handle stress very well, as I suspect would be the same case with you. BIG difference between one-way and two-way ranges, buddy, and personally, I’ve never met/known anyone who knew their “reaction time” off the top of their head that was worth a crap in a real-life situation. I hope there are a few, but I’m guessing there are not.

          It’s easy to monday-morning-quaterback this from your easy chair, in-between COD games, but until you’ve responded across town to a man-with-a-gun call, grabbed your gear and slapped-on a pistol-bullet-only rated vest, worked your way through a huge store as your adrenaline surges at every corner of every aisle, toward a person reportedly armed with a gun that makes your vest useless, and THEN had to make that critical decision to take or not take that shot, your opinion is worth what I paid to hear it — squat. I’ve only SIMULATED this type of stress with real guns and gear, and having done so and seen the outcome, I give a HUGE allowance to people who do this regularly in real life, where the penalty for failure is death; on one side, or the other, or even both.

        • So your consistent argument against the video evidence is to ignore the video evidence. Brilliant. You sir win the internet! The GOP needs a strategy for winning elections going forward. I nominate you as the new GOP chairman. Beat the Dems at their own game!

        • Dj9 just my opinion but it seems to me that the country was set up to protect the people from the govt. It is not set up to protect the police from the people. Cops will just have to start assuming more risk (just a little) if they want to be cops.

      • So your attitude is that anyone should be able to walk around Walmart absently waving what appears to be a real AR around and not expect people to get nervous? And my assertion that a newly offered for purchase gun should be boxed up is a threat to liberty? You’re an idiot, not the arbiter of all things Second Amendment.

        • I think 400 people should be able to walk around WalMart with a rifle but I don’t believe they should shoot anyone. Who fired the first shot?

  29. If you can clear your mind, listen to that audio again, and do not watch the video, just listen.

    Then, you turn the corner and see a man with a ‘rifle’. Tough situation.

    For me though, the police should be better trained than I am, so I expect them to be able to react better. I believe the cop to not be criminally negligent; however, I find him to be very much liable for the death of this young man.

    The caller has some sort of psychological deficiency, he may in fact be criminally negligent, and most definitely liable.

    • I just keep thinking, as a CCW person, why would I shoot someone? The answer has to be, because I had to in order to save a life. I don’t see these cop’s hands being forced into lethal force here. I don’t see a person’s life in danger even forgetting all the background information that we have. On face value, a man is standing in a Walmart with a loaded rifle. You can’t go in shooting. You have to see an actual threat, an actual crime, a report of an actual crime would have even been more reason to shoot so fast. But that didn’t happen. This was a termination of a potential threat. Legal in warfare…not legal in police work.

      • Pointing a loaded weapon at someone is a crime, which was reported to the dispatch. I agree that the police seemed to complete nothing in terms of a threat assessment. However, given the caller, it’s a tough spot. Making a mistake in that situation is unfortunately quite predictable.

        • Except, he didn’t point it at anyone. I know the 911 caller said that, but that does not mean a crime was committed. It just means, a 911 caller reported it. We have this little thing called due process in this country. Let me put this case of injustice in perspective for you and all the other police apologists. Watch the Walmart shooting again and note the total lack of on scene assessment by the scared shitless cops.
          Then watch this encounter with police from an actual defiant rifle carrying individual and note the stark contrast between good cop/bad cop.
          http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2014/06/dash_cam_footage_from_open_car.html

  30. If you go find this on youtube, and play that 5 seconds a few times, you can clearly here someone say “Stop” then “It’s a toy gun” then boom boom.

    Dude’s only chance might have been to drop the gun and freeze. I also agree with the 911 caller being a huge agitator in this scenario.

    • That could be the words said but the audio is not clear enough. I don’t think the cops would yell stop to a guy that isn’t moving, but I digress. I do take issue with your saying it happened in 5 seconds. A conversation could take place in 5 seconds. Some people can type this far in five seconds. I’m over a minute to this point. From the first command (be it “stop” or “drop it”) to the first shot, is less than a second and a half. And the part that you say is Crawford saying “it’s a toy gun” is drowned out by gunfire so there was no conversation taking place no matter who was speaking. I heard “Drop it!” “Drop the gun!” With the shots starting in the middle of the second set of words. I don’t believe you get “Stop” and a response, “it’s a toy gun” and two shots in the span of 1.5 seconds.

  31. Wow. This is a bad case. Guy has what looks like an assault rifle, caller says he’s loading it can pointing it at children.
    What if the cops held back and tried some more cautious methods first, but then he started gunning down other shoppers? If it was me, and my wife took a round because the cops decided to take it slow and steady… well… let’s just say I wouldn’t be very happy.

    I think the caller was majorly at fault. Other shoppers got closer, and didn’t run in terror. Move away maybe, but no “oh NOESS!!!!”.

    I blame public schools. You should NEVER play around with something that looks like a real gun in public, unless it’s super obvious that it’s 1. Playing, and 2. Fake. Carry responsibly, yes. Play with? No.

    • That’s another really good point. Because of the anti-gun people, many folks either have no proper gun-handling habits, or they have BAD ones, picked up from movies and TV. This was NOT an open carry advocate with a slung rifle, or a holstered pistol; he was walking around with his hand on the grip in a ready-to-fire position, and flipping/waving it around. WE all know not to do this, even with a fake or pellet gun; this guy apparently did not.

  32. Ok, I think the consensus has it that the 911 call was at the same time massively misleading and inflammatory, and the 911 operator didn’t help. My question which is not resolved by the vid I saw at the story link is, how long did the cops have him in view before they shot him? I couldn’t hear any commands, but evidently they didn’t take the time to clear the area, let alone the store, of customers or even lock the doors so no one else would be coming in. There was, I note, no one else in the immediate area with the “suspect” for almost the entire length of the video; I fail to see how he was an immediate threat to anyone. And I can safely conclude the ‘rifle’ was not raised or pointed at the cops before he was shot, for what that’s worth. I would kind of suspect DJ9 of being Paul McCain under a pseudonym, but I don’t think even Mr. McCain was capable of the police-apologist mental gymnastics being exhibited here. Which is not, BTW, to necessarily conclude that the cops were egregiously in the wrong. Like I say, I really can’t tell just how quick on the trigger they were being and what if any commands were ignored by the suspect.

  33. No, it’s not a good shoot, from what I can see in the video.

    And if cops are lying in their testimony and they get proved to be wrong, they need to lose their jobs for lying.

    • “And if cops are lying in their testimony and they get proved to be wrong, they need to lose their jobs for lying.”

      I fully agree. I’ve always had a problem with the “thin blue line” protecting one of their own, when they know that the person is guilty. If a cop will lie (or not speak up) to protect another cop, then they don’t have the proper ethics and moral grounding to be a cop at all, IMO. It always starts small, but that’s how cities end up with huge police corruption problems, cops planting evidence, hiding beatings and deaths, etc.

  34. That poor guy was stalked and murdered in cold blood all because he was holding a toy gun and talking on the phone.

    That has to be at the very least involuntary manslaughter!

  35. I couldn’t get the video to work on computer or phone. That being said why are people blaming the caller? Can’t the PO-leece use a tiny bit of judgement? I don’t usually use race as an excuse but could there have been a “crazy black man waving a scary assault weapon” thing going on. BTW I.ve been to Walmarts that were nothing but filthy flea markets. And toy/pellet guns strewn about. It also took 20 minutes for someone to open the ammo case.

    • “That being said why are people blaming the caller?”

      Because the caller lied and claimed the man was pointing at gun at people purely because he’s anti-gun and a racist. Things played out exactly as the piece of shit who called 911 hoped they would.

      • Nobody pulled the trigger but the cops. Every bullet we own…except for the PO-leece. I get the black thing too-my wife and kids are black. And Michael in GA-relax…I HATE going to Wal-Mart too. Besides I can get what I want cheaper with less chance of being assaulted in other stores.

    • They see you standing there looking at the last brick of .22LR and they just keep walking. You ask them to get some ammo for you and they don’t have the key so they leave for 20 minutes before someone comes with a key. The same guy cuts keys and mixes paint. I don’t get keys and paint at Walmart. I bet if I shattered that ammo case they would be there in no time.

  36. There is no way that shooting was justified.

    The guy never pointed the pellet gun at anyone and was clearly minding his own business in a corner of the store away from everyone else. A bunch of people walk right past him without even noticing him. Yeah, he shouldn’t have been fooling around with what appears to be a weapon like that, but nothing he ever did with it indicates any kind of threat.

    The cops shot him INSTANTLY, without warning. They shouted for him to drop the gun, which he immediately complied with on account of BEING DEAD. They didn’t give him more than a second to react, if even that, and he was still facing toward the shelves talking on the phone.

    Now the caller – that guy is a real piece of work. I really hope that guy watches this video over and over and agonizes over whether he made the right decision. Either he’s the worst observer ever, or he flat out lied. The result is the same. Pat yourself on the back there, vigilant Walmart shopper.

  37. No question … unjustified police shooting. If that’s what they are “trained to do” in Green County Ohio then you folks should move away as quickly as possible because you are clearly in danger of being killed. Callers to 911 are notorious for not really reporting “factual” information, as this caller could not do. This is called “shoot on sight” because an overly aggressive officer did not take the time necessary to determine if there actually was a threat. The only training represented here was the ability to pull the trigger. Jail time for sure.

  38. The guy looked like he was more of a threat to the photos of the dogs on the dog food bags than anything else. Maybe he would have shot a photo of Lassie. This was murder and the guy reporting on the cell phone was a total tool.

  39. How in the world did the the 911 dispatcher and every last one of the responding officers fail to make the connection between the fact that the 911 caller was willing to watch the allegedly dangerous Crawford for three minutes and the fact that Crawford quite possibly did not pose a threat that justified deadly force?

  40. They didn’t confirm it was a weapon or that he was posing a threat. They went in all hot and opened fire as soon as they saw him. Imagine if you or I did that believing there was a threat? That’s called MURDER. “Police, drop the weapon!” and then, based on his reaction, dictates what you can do. This is absolute MURDER. If he was carrying a toy, they should have confirmed that before opening fire. Just opening fire without saying anything is the response you’d take if the bad guy had already fired. No paying attention to what was beyond them or if there were kids nearby. Just gun happy cops.

    I can’t believe the jury didn’t convict. They didn’t see this video. Absolutely nuts. We have murderers patrolling our streets…

  41. I’ve seen a lot of people excuse the officer’s actions on the basis that he was acting on the information from the 911 caller (later admitted to lying). However, every officer has a responsibility to assess the situation upon arrival at the scene. For obvious reasons illustrated by this very situation no officer should rush into a situation relying solely on the assessment of a non-professional.
    What if it had been a real weapon? It wasn’t.
    What if he had actually been threatening people? He wasn’t.
    You can ‘what-if’ this to death but, in the end, this was a senseless death.

    If those officers had been a member of any of the agencies I have had the privilege of working with in the past they would face heavy internal scrutiny over:
    *failure to clear the scene – bystanders can be seen in the area immediately before and after the shooting
    *failure to assess the situation – at least one officer should have gone to the security cameras WHILE other officers cleared the area and Before the suspect was confronted

    Before the release of the video I saw numerous “reports” that Mr. Crawford had yelled that the gun wasn’t real, and other such details that lead me to believe that Mr. Crawford 1) was uncooperative with police and 2) that Mr. Crawford actually had time to comply with their orders.
    Now having seen the video, it looks more like ‘shoot first, ask questions later’.

  42. Did the officers shout at him in the hopes we would comply with cat-like reflexes, or do they just do that to avoid inconvenient entry wounds to his back?

  43. That was murder. No commands, no standoff, just shots fired. That means prison time for the officers involved, mistake or not we are all accountable for our actions and well………..murder is murder. No body deserves to be shot because uneducated and/or improperly informed and/or emotionally irrational individuals PERCIEVE threats. The threat is real or it isn’t. If a man is standing in the same spot for X minutes talking ON THE FUCKING PHONE while performing _______ arbitrary action and MULTIPLE individuals pass by this person without fear or panic then he is most definitely NOT a threat. Congrats 911 caller you are in my eyes guilty of negligent homicide, dear officer for failure to properly identify your target and ascertain proper situational awareness before engaging a POTENTIAL hostile you are guilty of homicide / and or voluntary manslaughter.

    See you all next time on another episode of “F*%k Your Freedom”

  44. It appears that the LEO went in too fast and based too much of there decisions on the 911 caller. On top of that, they had active shooter training 2 weeks earlier. They were apparently running around with a hammer looking for nails and Crawford looked like a 10-penny nail to them so they pounded him into the wood.

    These LEO turned out to be more of a real threat to the mother of the 2 kids than Crawford did. When they gunned down Crawford, she died of heart failure moments later.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *