Man who called 911 in Ohio Walmart shooting changes his story after viewing video

Any LAWYER and DETECTIVE will tell you that eyewitness accounts are highly questionable. People don't lie, they remember WRONGLY, badly especially under STRESS. Seems to me this eyewitness knows it and is admitting he was wrong in part. Unfortunately the 'black man walking around waving around the gun in Kmart' is DEAD. What I didn't know there was only 1 caller to 9/11, I thought several people did. . (I told this board 3 weeks ago, wait till we see the video, I KNEW IT HAD TO EXIST). The family wants the video released. The Republican ATTY GENERAL REFUSES.



Man who called 911 in Ohio Walmart shooting changes his story after viewing video
By Travis Gettys
Tuesday, September 9, 2014 10:14 EDT


Some questions have emerged about the witness account that led to the fatal shooting of a man carrying a toy gun inside a Walmart store in Ohio.

Ronald Ritchie, another shopper, called 911 from the Beavercreek retailer Aug. 5 to report a black man “walking around with a gun in the store” – placing other customers under direct threat.

In a recording of the call made to dispatchers, Ritchie claimed the man was pointing the toy gun – which he believed was an AR-15 rifle – at other shoppers, and he repeated those claims to news media after police gunned down 22-year-old John Crawford III. “He was pointing at people – children walking by,” Ritchie claimed to reporters.

But the 24-year-old — who was the only shopper who called 911 — offered another account last week in an interview with the Guardian.

“At no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody,” he said, although he continued to insist Crawford was “waving it around.”

An attorney for Crawford’s family strongly denies that claim, saying surveillance video recorded prior to the shooting directly contradicts the accounts offered by police and Ritchie.

Attorney Michael Wright, who watched a five-minute excerpt of the video with Crawford’s father, has urged Ohio’s attorney general to publicly release the video and other evidence. Attorney General Mike DeWine has so far refused, saying it would be “playing with dynamite” to do so prior to a grand jury hearing scheduled for Sept. 22.

However, Ritchie claims he was shown the video by officials in the attorney general’s bureau of criminal investigation – and Wright said he intends to file a complaint with DeWine.

“That is very improper,” Wright said, arguing that Ritchie’s statement should be based only on his own recollections.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/...ooting-changes-his-story-after-viewing-video/

 

What is this, the NFL?

Show the video, thanks.

 

Yeah, it is actually. Men 'protecting' their own asses. I see no difference between the 2 horrible examples

(Incidentally, Mike Dewine used to be an OH congressman before he went back (or was voted out?) and became AG of OH. He had one of those 'twisted up' faces, kinda of intense, humorless. I just didn't like the guy. Had no idea where he went till this story broke).

 

Looks like Ritchie swatted this poor guy. And the police shot this guy in the back of the arm and side. How is that a threat to them if he wasn't even facing them. They need to release the video.

 

I'm not sure that the accuracy of the initial 911 report is all that relevant. I'm sure such reports are usually unclear, incomplete and mistaken. The officers that arrived would (should!) have primarily responded to what they actually saw themselves. There appear to be questions there too but that's not covered here.

I also find it odd that on one hand the defence lawyer is arguing for the video to be released to the public prior to any legal proceedings yet on the other hand he's saying it's wrong for the witness to view it. That kind of polluting witness recollection is one of the key reasons why details of criminal cases shouldn't be splashed all over the media prior to any trial.

I'd suggest that the only reason for wanting evidence to be made public prior to legal proceedings is to encourage "trial by media" and any lawyer promoting that should have their licence revoked.

 

The witness should never have been allowed to see it, and the video shouldn't be released until after the Jury has seen it.

 

They are in SERIOUS CYA mode now. Bet on it! (The family attorney will legally be able to obtain copies--I sure as hell hope it isn't 'edited' by the time it
is released).

 

The only thing that matters is what he did when the Police showed up. If they told him to drop it and he didn't.............justifiable shooting.

 

I dont deny that, I think we should see the video though.

 

It's clear that Ritchie has received the usual threats from members of the local the black community.

 

Well, sounds like it might not have been a justified shooting. I stand corrected for believing Ritchie's initial testimony, especially since it didn't match the video. I think it's grand jury time...... for Ritchie and the police officer.

 

I agree with you completely. I think the OP article if from one of those anonymous kook blogs. Anonymous blogs hide their identity to thwart accountability for the crapola they spew.

 

Remember Ohio is a open carry state for rifles. So its ok for the police to demand you drop it and if your not fast enough they can kill you. So in Ohio, if you follow the law and open carry, there is a good chance you will be killed by police it seems. More so if your black.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Ohio

 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/07/main-witness-in-fatal-wal-mart-police-shooting-changes-his-story/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...y-police-walmart-doubts-cast-witnesss-account

Not so cooky.

BTW - posted this a few days ago but got no traction.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...l-mart-police-shooting-changes-his-story.html

 

Why do we need to see it. It's evidence in an on-going criminal case. Do you think all evidence from all criminal cases should be put in the public domain before they're concluded?

The only reason (other than some kind of sick voyeurism) to want to see the video is to pre-judge (perjure!) the legal process. I think that's a bad reason.

 

The story has been covered by CBS, ABC, Fox, Guardian, and others. Why the OP went with a no-name blog is beyond me, maybe he was just interested in injecting an anti-Republican spin as he always does.

 

Turns out he was on his phone talking to the mother of his children. She stated:

“We was just talking. He said he was at the video games playing videos and he went over there by the toy section where the toy guns were. And the next thing I know, he said ‘It’s not real,’ and the police start shooting and they said ‘Get on the ground,’ but he was already on the ground because they had shot him. And I could hear him just crying and screaming. I feel like they shot him down like he was not even human.”


The reason the DA doesn't want to release the video is not because it incriminates Ritchie (the liar who called 911), but because it will show the cops murdered an innocent man.

Ritchie and the cops should be tried for murder. The past few years shows clearly that when given the slightest excuse, cops will kill.

 

.......he was allowed to view a surveillance video. His own recollection wasn't enough?

 

An air gun? Really? Drop it or get shot?

I don't understand why conservatives, who are skeptical of government's abuse of power, give police so much leeway. They are agents of the government, as capable of corruption and lies and anyone else.

 

Ray Rice had a 2 game suspension, right up until the public saw the video. Now his career is over, and Roger Goodell may soon be fired.

The video made all the difference.

 

That's an argument against releasing the video to the public (including potential juror pool), the same reason the same lawyer rightly objected to it being shown to the witness.

Otherwise we might as well scrap all the courts, stick the evidence of each case on the internet and lock up the suspects who get the fewest "likes".

 

So you want to hide evidence?

That doesnt sound like justice to me.

 

IF the video shows he wasn't waving the gun around, yes then Ritchie should be charged. Just the fact he said to the cops, "it's not real" instead of dropping it justifies him getting shot. It's doesn't matter WHAT he said, he's standing there holding a real looking rifle the threat must be taken seriously. As far as getting shot on the ground......we heard Michael Brown was shot in the back too. Why wouldn't he just drop the pellet rifle when told to do so?



He chose NOT to drop this when told to............

 

Yet an entire town has gone nuts and lefties on this forum are aghast at the racist white police officer in Ferguson because the eyewitness reports proved just how racist he is.

Yawn.....another useless race card post. At least you are consistent in your obsession.

 

The toy-makers take pains to make it look as real as possible.