911 caller may be charged for reporting man with gun in Walmart:man shot by police

[tinydancer]

The video from Walmart doesn't EXACTLY match what the panicked man was reporting to 911. This is nuts. If they charge this man get ready for no one wanting to report what they believe is a dangerous situation or crime in progress.

He makes the 911 call. Cops show up. Shoot the man unfortunately but now the caller is responsible for the man's death.

How freaking whacked out is this?

"A judge has ruled that there is probable cause to charge Ronald Ritchie (left) for making the 911 call that led to John Crawford III's (right) death".

"Ritchie called police on August 5, 2014 to say that a man was waiving a gun and pointing it at people. Crawford was holding a BB gun and was killed when responding officers confused it for a deadly weapon"

So the caller was panicked and was not describing the scene perfectly. Holy toledo that he could be charged for this? Not reporting to 911 completely accurately?

Unreal.

Caller who reported man with gun at Wal-Mart may be charged

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

The video from Walmart doesn't EXACTLY match what the panicked man was reporting to 911. This is nuts. If they charge this man get ready for no one wanting to report what they believe is a dangerous situation or crime in progress.

He makes the 911 call. Cops show up. Shoot the man unfortunately but now the caller is responsible for the man's death.

How freaking whacked out is this?

"A judge has ruled that there is probable cause to charge Ronald Ritchie (left) for making the 911 call that led to John Crawford III's (right) death".

"Ritchie called police on August 5, 2014 to say that a man was waiving a gun and pointing it at people. Crawford was holding a BB gun and was killed when responding officers confused it for a deadly weapon"

So the caller was panicked and was not describing the scene perfectly. Holy toledo that he could be charged for this? Not reporting to 911 completely accurately?

Unreal.

Caller who reported man with gun at Wal-Mart may be charged

I do not see how the caller can be held accountable for what the police did unless the caller did it as a prank which I doubt is not proven.

It seem to me that the Court is trying to pass the blame onto the caller, and the only part of the call that the video does not show is the caller claimed the guy with the BB gun was pointing the rifle at two kids.

If that is the Judge reasoning to have the Prosecutor view if charges needed to be brought against the caller, well that is weak and I doubt any charges will be filed, and if they are then the Prosecutor will have a hell of a time getting a conviction...

Even the lawyer for the victim family said it was not the caller fault for what the Police did, so this is a stretch by that Judge!

 

[The Great Goose]

Wow! What a weirdo. I see this kind of thing on the increase. Everyone gets people by sneaky means.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If store security cams dont show the guy menacing customers and he's only walking around shopping they kind of have a point.
But I dont see how you charge him with murder,maybe filing a false police report.
After all it was the cops doing the shooting. It's been awhile so I really dont remember the finer points of what happened in this case but if they never gave the guy a chance to drop the BB gun thats on them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, they don't want to charge the cops, but to make it look good, they've gotta charge SOMEONE.

I don't think the caller should be held accountable, because in some cases it is hard to tell a pellet or bb gun from the real thing, unless you are really close.

The cops response however? They should have taken the time to find out what the guy was actually holding. Being shot for a pellet gun is just wrong.

 

[MikeK]

Unless there is sufficient cause to believe the 911 caller knew or had cause to know the gun the subject was waving around was non-lethal the only other possibility is the judge has bent over backward to defend the cop from a poor judgment complaint.

What I mean by poor judgment is, being advised the subject of the 911 call was armed why didn't the cop approach cautiously and issue warnings rather than walk right up and shoot -- presuming that's what happened?

If that is not what happened, if the cop did in fact approach cautiously and issue warnings to the subject who failed to put the bb-gun down, then it would seem the caller had good reason to believe this subject was dangerous and to call 911.

More information is needed to draw any conclusions.

 

[Sunni Man]

If you see a negro with a gun. Calling the cops is the only sensible thing to do.

Because he is either getting ready to commit a crime, or thinking about committing a crime.

Better to be safe than sorry. ....

 

[TNHarley]

So a cop can get off for shooting a kid with a toy gun, but then you have this? REALLY?

 

[Agit8r]

If they didn't pass the blame, they'd have to admit that this is how cops get their sick kicks.

 

[jillian]

The video from Walmart doesn't EXACTLY match what the panicked man was reporting to 911. This is nuts. If they charge this man get ready for no one wanting to report what they believe is a dangerous situation or crime in progress.

He makes the 911 call. Cops show up. Shoot the man unfortunately but now the caller is responsible for the man's death.

How freaking whacked out is this?

"A judge has ruled that there is probable cause to charge Ronald Ritchie (left) for making the 911 call that led to John Crawford III's (right) death".

"Ritchie called police on August 5, 2014 to say that a man was waiving a gun and pointing it at people. Crawford was holding a BB gun and was killed when responding officers confused it for a deadly weapon"

So the caller was panicked and was not describing the scene perfectly. Holy toledo that he could be charged for this? Not reporting to 911 completely accurately?

Unreal.

Caller who reported man with gun at Wal-Mart may be charged

I do not see how the caller can be held accountable for what the police did unless the caller did it as a prank which I doubt is not proven.

It seem to me that the Court is trying to pass the blame onto the caller, and the only part of the call that the video does not show is the caller claimed the guy with the BB gun was pointing the rifle at two kids.

If that is the Judge reasoning to have the Prosecutor view if charges needed to be brought against the caller, well that is weak and I doubt any charges will be filed, and if they are then the Prosecutor will have a hell of a time getting a conviction...

Even the lawyer for the victim family said it was not the caller fault for what the Police did, so this is a stretch by that Judge!

the caller can't and won't be charged with anything.

she's just delusional again

 

[MikeK]

So a cop can get off for shooting a kid with a toy gun, but then you have this? REALLY?

That depends on exactly what happened when the cop arrived. Did the cop approach the subject cautiously, staying out of potential line-of-fire and, upon seeing the subject, issue warning to drop his weapon? Or did he boldly stride right in like Wild Bill Hickock and shoot immediately upon sighting the subject?

Legally, the cop is in the clear. He was responding to a 911 call about a man waving a gun in a store -- who might very well be a psycho. So technically this is what is called a "good shoot."

As far as the job is concerned everything depends on where this cop stands in relation to his command. If it looks like he could have avoided killing the subject he could be terminated on the basis of being incapable of proper judgment. Or he could be placed on limited (clerical) assignment. Or his record could reflect poor judgment -- all of which could leave his employer open to extreme liability if he does something similar in the future and a civil jury is influenced by his past record.

So even if his superiors believe the shooting was avoidable they will do whatever they can to determine it was necessary and proper. Otherwise their department could assume responsibility for his action and be liable for damages.

 

[MikeK]

I do not see how the caller can be held accountable for what the police did unless the caller did it as a prank which I doubt is not proven.

It seem to me that the Court is trying to pass the blame onto the caller, and the only part of the call that the video does not show is the caller claimed the guy with the BB gun was pointing the rifle at two kids.

If that is the Judge reasoning to have the Prosecutor view if charges needed to be brought against the caller, well that is weak and I doubt any charges will be filed, and if they are then the Prosecutor will have a hell of a time getting a conviction...

Even the lawyer for the victim family said it was not the caller fault for what the Police did, so this is a stretch by that Judge!

It is rare for the judge in a court of first motion (arraignment court) or an initial hearing to move against the arresting officer(s). Unless there are highly unusual circumstances we are not aware of this appears to be a prime example of that arbitrarily preferential policy. This is where it is very important for a defendant to have a motivated (well paid) lawyer, because a public defender has neither the time nor the impetus to create substantially more work for himself -- which often will require the services of a specialized private investigator.

In other words, if you are arrested and charged with some bullshit offense, and you don't can't afford a good lawyer, you have very little hope of being acquitted or having the charges tossed out on the first motion.

And that is America.