Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by M-Quigley »

JediSkipdogg wrote: I never said you move in and shoot the target. I said twice you assess and one time you locate. It doesn't matter what the caller says, what the dispatcher says. Once you have enough info that you have a person acting out of the ordinary with a possible weapon, you treat it that they are going to use said weapon. You locate them, assess what they are doing, and then take action. That can be shooting them if they pose an immediate threat, talking them down, or even blindsiding them like a defensive lineman. What choice you make is what you have to live with for the rest of your life.

The big key is that assessing phase. I can't say it enough, but many seem to be missing that.
I wasn't going to respond to this, since I thought it was a dead thread. Since it apparently still has some life however, no, I didn't miss the assessing phase. My initial comments weren't specifically about what you said, but rather what the Beavercreek officers said. What they said is at odds with what you said in the bolded. According to Sgt. Darkow you basically just skip the assessing phrase and start shooting, simply because of the info provided by an unknown 911 caller.

In addition, I never said that I think police tactics should go back to the pre Columbine days of waiting hours to respond, and have never said that police shouldn't be prepared to shoot if needed in any potential situation that might require it.
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by bignflnut »

JediSkipdogg wrote:
When most mass shootings have ended before police arrive, I said MOST, but NOT ALL, you don't have seconds to waste and get the drone, get the bomb robot out, fully assess the situation, etc. You have to go in, acquire the target, assess what the target is doing at that exact moment, and act.

I'm not sure how you think any other method is more effective. Other methods simply waste precious seconds where lives can be taken.
I suppose it's all in the priorities one maintains. Take this recent hostage standoff, for instance:
UPDATE @ 7:15 a.m (Jan. 14): A standoff where a 10-year-old boy was held hostage for nearly 30 hours is reportedly over.

According to our partners at WCPO, SWAT and other officials began to clear the scene at the Liberty Twp. townhomes around 6:30 a.m.

The 10-year-old boy is safe, and the suspect is in custody.

SNIP

A standoff involving a man who fired more than 20 rounds at law enforcement while holding a 10-year-old boy hostage in Liberty Twp. has entered its second day.

10-year-old boy believed OK, not related to man
Boy lives at townhome where he’s held captive
Suspect fired more than 20 rounds in separate instances; law enforcement did not return fire
Sheriff to media: “It's a good sign when he's not shooting at us.”
LEOs saved both lives, even though they were fired upon!
#Heroes can be used without irony or sarcasm in this instance because lives were preserved, despite the amount of time needed.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by JediSkipdogg »

bignflnut wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:
When most mass shootings have ended before police arrive, I said MOST, but NOT ALL, you don't have seconds to waste and get the drone, get the bomb robot out, fully assess the situation, etc. You have to go in, acquire the target, assess what the target is doing at that exact moment, and act.

I'm not sure how you think any other method is more effective. Other methods simply waste precious seconds where lives can be taken.
I suppose it's all in the priorities one maintains. Take this recent hostage standoff, for instance:
UPDATE @ 7:15 a.m (Jan. 14): A standoff where a 10-year-old boy was held hostage for nearly 30 hours is reportedly over.

According to our partners at WCPO, SWAT and other officials began to clear the scene at the Liberty Twp. townhomes around 6:30 a.m.

The 10-year-old boy is safe, and the suspect is in custody.

SNIP

A standoff involving a man who fired more than 20 rounds at law enforcement while holding a 10-year-old boy hostage in Liberty Twp. has entered its second day.

10-year-old boy believed OK, not related to man
Boy lives at townhome where he’s held captive
Suspect fired more than 20 rounds in separate instances; law enforcement did not return fire
Sheriff to media: “It's a good sign when he's not shooting at us.”
LEOs saved both lives, even though they were fired upon!
#Heroes can be used without irony or sarcasm in this instance because lives were preserved, despite the amount of time needed.
And in that case they may not have seen the target or had the appropriate weapons to return fire. I know SWAT was called out but I believe all the shooting at police was on first responders and supposedly pretty rapid. At some point though one has to look at when do you attempt to force entry into an apartment vs just wait.

I'm not even sure how you can compare this to Walmart. In this instance, the officers assessed they couldn't safely return fire. At some point though if the firing continued, they would have probably had no option but to return fire. They can't wait an hour and then just start popping rounds into the building, hence why it lasted 30 hours. If something else happened, they could gone another route. In the Walmart case, it was the assessing phase that failed. I'm not sure why some do not see that.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by bignflnut »

JediSkipdogg wrote:I'm not even sure how you can compare this to Walmart. ... In the Walmart case, it was the assessing phase that failed. I'm not sure why some do not see that.
There is little, if any, official recognition that the assessing phase was necessary and failed. It would go a long way if there was a public acknowledgement that there was a failure, in any phase. Instead, we are left with justification of the execution of an otherwise innocent man. We justify the call, we justify the officer, and we blame the deceased, the person that needed an advocate.
We are in this situation because of qualified immunity. Qualified Immunity is a legal defense where government officials are held harmless if they followed established procedures. Ordinary citizens do not have this legal immunity. You and I would be held criminally negligent if we did what the police do. We are lucky to have a cure.

We use simulators to train law enforcement when to shoot and when not to shoot. This reality based training is extremely useful in exposing weaknesses in police policy and in officer training. Now we can use these simulators to fix broken police procedures, but with a twist. We need to put a few civilians through the simulators, not the police.

We have many recordings of officers arresting civilians. We know what they say. We want to expose ordinary citizens to these simulations and capture the results as the citizens respond.

By ordinary citizens I mean Walmart shoppers. We want to test the people most likely to come in contact with the police. Let’s record how they respond with flashing lights, loud noise and conflicting unexpected commands. There are many use-of-force instructors who can look at the multiple videos and tally-up the number of times these innocent citizens would have been shot by police who were “just following procedures”. How many innocent civilians should we sacrifice? One out of a million, or one out of five?

“Just following procedures” sounds too much like “just following orders” to me, but I could be wrong. The reality based simulations will show us. They will establish how many civilians are shot while officers are “just following accepted police procedures”. Police agencies might not generate and release this data but you can be sure that lawyers representing the dead person’s family certainly will.

We don’t have to guess if police procedures are safe and effective. We can measure them.
One guy's solution, at least.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
User avatar
Klingon00
Posts: 3824
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by Klingon00 »

In a somewhat similar incident where police were fraudulently called and an innocent was murdered, the caller has been charged with the crime...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nslaughter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is interesting because if the police were simply a “Good Samaritan” CHL holder who shot, it would be the CHL holder who would be charged.

So if the police are immune because they are following procedure, does the crime then “roll downhill” so to speak and fall on the caller who initiated the encounter?
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by JediSkipdogg »

Klingon00 wrote:In a somewhat similar incident where police were fraudulently called and an innocent was murdered, the caller has been charged with the crime...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nslaughter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is interesting because if the police were simply a “Good Samaritan” CHL holder who shot, it would be the CHL holder who would be charged.

So if the police are immune because they are following procedure, does the crime then “roll downhill” so to speak and fall on the caller who initiated the encounter?
The Kansas one is totally different and was found to be a call of swatting. There was no evidence in Beavercreek of swatting because there was enough evidence to say a guy was in the store playing with a gun that appeared to be real.

The crime can roll downhill if the evidence shows that information is purported to be false. Can you charge a caller with saying they saw someone leave a robbery in a red car when the suspect plainly left in a blue car if police roll up on a red car, the guy gets out, and the police kill him? Can you prove his perception was false? It's a fine line and at what cost do you go forth to try him and possibly ruin his life?
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by M-Quigley »

Update: Dispatcher made error, realized it right away, and failed to correct it.

http://www.whio.com/news/crime--law/911 ... yppIiTT8H/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
— The Beavercreek 911 dispatcher said she erred in telling officers that John Crawford III was loading a rifle with “bullets” because caller Ronald Ritchie never used that word, according to a deposition made public in the Crawford family’s wrongful death civil rights lawsuit against Beavercreek and Walmart.
Beavercreek city attorney Neil Freund objected to Starks’ question about if Weber made mistakes, but witnesses are required to answer most questions in depositions.

I made an assumption,” Weber said, then adding, “Mr. Ritchie advised that he was loading — he believed he was loading the weapon. … And I put that out there the first time. When I was questioned by the officer, I said, he believes he’s load — he’s loading it with bullets. I said bullets.”

“When did you discover that error?” Starks asked.

“I — I knew that I had said bullets and Mr. Ritchie had said — had said loading the weapon. I knew that from the moment I said it,” Weber answered.

“Why didn’t you correct it right after you said it?” Starks asked.

“Because loading a weapon — I made the assumption bullets, but he felt he was loading the weapon, and that’s — you put ammunition or bullets inside of a weapon,” Weber answered.

In the deposition that took an hour and seven minutes, Weber also said the only questions Williams asked were if someone on the phone had eyes on Crawford and if the dispatcher could confirm someone thought he was loading the weapon.

“He’s like loading it right now,” Ritchie told a Fairborn dispatcher early in the 911 call — the first of a few times he talked about if Crawford was loading the item.

After telling a dispatcher he didn’t have any idea what Crawford was loading it with because he wasn’t going to get that close, Ritchie said he thought Crawford was holding a black rifle.

“You said you saw him put — load it?” Weber asked during the 911 call of which a transcript was filed in court documents.

“He looked like he was trying to load it. I don’t know,” Ritchie answered.

Immediately after that, an officer asked Weber if the caller had an eye on the man and she said, “Affirmative,” later adding, “Believes it’s a rifle, believes he just put some bullets inside.”

The officer answered, “Clear.”

Nearly a minute later, Ritchie told dispatchers the man pointed the weapon at two children.

Thirty seconds later, Ritchie twice said Crawford was on the phone, something officers said they didn’t know in their depositions and Weber never relayed, according to the transcript.

About 40 seconds after that, Williams fired and hit Crawford twice.

Police said Crawford didn’t respond to requests by Williams and Sgt. David Darkow to drop the item. Crawford family attorneys said Crawford had less than a second to hear and respond to anything officers said.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by M-Quigley »

UPDATE:

https://www.whio.com/news/crime--law/cr ... WSLVGUmGM/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
— A police expert witness for the city of Beavercreek agreed that police officer Sean Williams’ fatal shooting of John Crawford III in 2014 was justified because the 22-year-old Fairfield man turned toward officers with an item that looked like a rifle, according to court documents.

But a pathologist expert witness for Beavercreek concluded that Crawford did not turn toward Williams and Sgt. David Darkow, citing surveillance video and the entry wounds from Williams’ bullets.

Those two statements are the basis of Crawford family attorneys’ summary judgment filing in the federal civil rights lawsuit filed in Dayton’s District Court.

The pathologist’s statements also don’t seem to match previous sworn statements of Williams and Darkow’s interviews about the Aug. 5, 2014, incident, according to the same attorneys.

“In a remarkable and unprecedented twist, those hand-picked experts seem to have taken the side of the Crawford family in this litigation and concluded John’s shooting never should have happened,” read a statement from Dennis Mulvihill and Michael Wright, the Crawford family attorneys. “Plaintiffs are unaware of any other case involving a police shooting where the experts hired by the officers to exonerate the officers actually implicate the officers instead.”
A Greene County special grand jury cleared Williams of any criminal wrongdoing in September 2014. A federal investigation finished in 2017 with U.S. Department of Justice officials saying the probe “revealed that the evidence is insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Officer Williams violated federal civil rights laws.”

Crawford was holding a replica-style BB/pellet rifle he had picked up from an opened box on a store shelf and was talking on his phone to the mother of his two children. His parents’ attorneys have said Crawford had from a third to a half of one second to hear, understand and react to any commands.

The Crawford family attorneys wrote that “the defense is actually, wholly based on the claim that John Crawford turned toward the officers — an event that never happened.”

Dr. George Nichols II, the former chief medical examiner of Kentucky, was asked in a deposition, “And John had not turned towards the officers before being shot, correct?” to which Nichols answered, “Correct.”
James Scanlon, a longtime Columbus officer and police practices expert, agreed that the action Crawford took justifying lethal force was Crawford rotating his body and gun towards Williams, according to his deposition.

Scanlon was then asked if Crawford had not rotated his body and gun that the shooting wouldn’t have been justified. “That is correct,” Scanlon said, also agreeing that there would be no imminent threat of serious bodily harm in that scenario.

Williams said in his deposition that he never saw Crawford point a gun at or threaten anyone, but he testified that he shot Crawford because the 22-year-old Fairfield resident “was about to” point a weapon at him.

Williams said that he relied on information from lone 911 caller Ronald Ritchie, who said a man was loading a rifle and pointing it at people, so that when Crawford appeared to Williams to turn toward the officers, the totality of the circumstances was “the reason why I pulled the trigger.”

The plaintiffs’ motion also noted that some of Williams and Darkow’s accounts of what happened changed from their interviews with Beavercreek police, Ohio’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation, written statements weeks later, interrogatory responses and their depositions.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by M-Quigley »

UPDATE: Trial date set Feb 4th 2019

https://www.whio.com/news/local/trial-s ... FGSF6iTkM/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by M-Quigley »

UPDATE: Most aspects of lawsuit to go to trial, one defendant dropped from lawsuit (the Sgt.) Judges comments on why trial to go forward

https://www.whio.com/news/crime--law/ju ... 0U9GQJcPJ/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Most allegations against Beavercreek police officer Sean Williams — who shot twice and killed Crawford, 22, of Fairfield, on Aug. 5, 2014 — will continue. All counts against Sgt. David Darkow were dismissed.
Rice wrote that when officers got to Walmart, “they did not observe Crawford waving the rifle around or pointing it at people or other objects. They heard no gunshots. Nor did they observe or hear anything that would lead them to believe that Crawford had threatened anyone, caused any injury or induced panic.”

The judge wrote, “In this case, the reasonableness of Williams’ use of deadly force hinges almost entirely on the question of whether, at the moment he pulled the trigger, Williams reasonably perceived Crawford to pose an imminent threat of serious physical harm to the officers or others. On this subject, the parties vehemently disagree.”

Rice wrote the case could turn on what jurors see when they watch the Walmart surveillance video.

A plaintiff’s expert testified that Williams fired his first shot at Crawford 1.5 seconds after Darkow gave his first verbal command and just .8 seconds after Crawford turned his head. The expert also said Williams fired his second shot .32 seconds after his first shot.

“Defendants’ own police practices expert, James Scanlon, testified that if Crawford did not rotate his body and gun toward the officers, there would have been no imminent threat of serious bodily harm and the shooting would not be justified,” Rice wrote.
IDK if this will affect the defendant or not in the trial but I if I recall correctly the defendant testified in a depostion that it was his belief that he essentially would've been justified in shooting Crawford on sight, regardless of him turning his head or shouting a command, due to what he perceived the situation simply based on the 911 call and the fact he was holding what appeared to be a firearm, regardless of where it was pointed or what the suspect was doing. In other words he gets a 911 call sees man with gun and supposedly he's justified in shooting simply based on that alone? Obviously he's not a judge but it could go to his mindset at the time.
The decision highlighted Darkow’s different explanations of what he saw Crawford do, that it’s normal for a person to turn their head after hearing a command and that an expert said it “takes the average person 1.5 seconds after hearing a command to evaluate what he heard, to decide to act, and then to act.”

Crawford may have needed more time to process any request, Rice wrote, because Crawford was on his phone and the officers didn’t identify themselves as police.

“If, as Officer Williams claims, Crawford took an aggressive stance and rotated his body or the rifle toward the officers, then Crawford had no clearly established right to be free from the use of deadly force,” Rice wrote. “In fact, quite the opposite is true.”

Rice cited Williams’ use of force eight times the department average and that Evers, in a deposition, had called Williams “an aggressive officer” in the judge’s reasoning to keep in claims against Beavercreek for inadequate training and supervision.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by M-Quigley »

Update" Walmart dropped from part of the lawsuit, negligence part can still go forward.

https://www.whio.com/news/local/judge-d ... cPjdOs0SO/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by M-Quigley »

Update:

https://www.whio.com/news/local/crawfor ... LE5F7BV6M/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The civil lawsuit brought by John Crawford III’s parents against Walmart and Beavercreek police officer Sean Williams likely will go forward in the same trial, a federal judge ruled this week.

But U.S. District Court Judge Walter Rice also ruled that counts against the city of Beavercreek and police Chief Dennis Evers won’t progress unless the jury finds fault in Williams’ actions.

Certain claims against Beavercreek are “predicated upon a finding that Officer Williams used excessive force when he shot and killed John Crawford,” Rice wrote. “Accordingly, there is no need to present of the City’s alleged failure to train and supervise Officer Williams unless the jury first finds that Officer Williams violated Crawford’s constitutional rights.”

Rice wrote that if the jury finds that, the same jury would determine if Beavercreek or Evers were responsible for failing to train or supervise.

RELATED: Beavercreek appeals ruling in deadly Walmart shooting

The trial has been pushed back to Oct. 28 — more than five years after Williams shot twice and killed Crawford in Beavercreek’s Walmart — to give the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals time to decide on an appeal by Beavercreek to another ruling. The appeals court ruling could impact whether Beavercreek defendants and Walmart go to trial together.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by M-Quigley »

Update: Walmarts defense in the Crawford lawsuit. Regardless of how much responsibility the 911 caller should have, the fact is Walmart has deep pockets and the 911 caller doesn't.

https://www.whio.com/news/crime--law/wa ... MoFcUVrCP/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In a lawsuit over the 2014 shooting by police of a Beavercreek Walmart customer, attorneys for Walmart plan to claim that another customer who called 911 was the cause of the incident and the store should not be held responsible.

Walmart attorneys have filed motions in a wrongful death lawsuit stating that Ronald Ritchie, the man who first called 911 from the Beavercreek Walmart stating there was a suspicious man with a gun in the store, was the “legal and proximate cause” of John Crawford III’s shooting death by a Beavercreek police officer on Aug. 5, 2014.

“Ronald Ritchie’s lies are the sole reasons why police came into the (Beavercreek Walmart) store with their guns drawn,” Walmart attorneys wrote. “Ronald Ritchie intentionally lied to the police. Ronald Ritchie was not a good Samaritan who was mistaken.”
The trial is scheduled for Oct. 28. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is considering an appeal by Beavercreek arguing that its officers should be protected from the family’s lawsuit because of qualified immunity.

Crawford family attorney Michael Wright said the family believes responsibility for the shooting remains that of the store, Walmart, and the city of Beavercreek.

“Ritchie would not have called 911 had the BB gun been secure in the box,” Wright said Tuesday. “So, Walmart’s ultimately responsible for this event.”
Regarding the part about the gun should've been secure in a box, someone mentioned to me that he thinks the 911 caller is racist because he read somewhere that there is Walmart security video out there that shows some white person or persons doing worse things with the same gun and no one called 911. Is that true?

Even if the part about white people playing with the gun is true (IDK) it doesn't mean that 911 caller was there when that stuff allegedly happened.
User avatar
catfish86
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2571
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:44 pm

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by catfish86 »

What is truly disturbing is the police officer saying he was justified to just shoot on site based on a dispatcher's relaying an unknown person's account of what was happening. Swatting has been with us how long? The more I read up on these officers the scarier it gets.
A plaintiff’s expert testified that Williams fired his first shot at Crawford 1.5 seconds after Darkow gave his first verbal command and just .8 seconds after Crawford turned his head. The expert also said Williams fired his second shot .32 seconds after his first shot.
It takes 1-3 seconds to physically aim and pull the trigger on a gun for most people. This timeline means the decision had already been made to shoot before the suspect had been seen. Literally this guys says he was justified to shoot on sight and he did so. I see the plaintiff attorney having a field day with this guy.

I still think Ritchie should be put on trial for manslaughter for calling in blatant lies to 911 resulting in the death of another. I have to agree with Walmart on that one. The reason Ritchie wasn't sued is because A) he has nothing and B) the plaintiff doesn't want this guy taking the glory from the others with deeper pockets.
God,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can
and the Wisdom to know the difference.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a crime.

Gun control is racist.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Depositions in Beavercreek Walmart shooting lawsuit

Post by M-Quigley »

Update: family settles against city for 1.7 million, city does not admit any wrong doing, suit against Walmart continues
The P.D. puts out a letter basically saying we followed procedure based on the 911 caller.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/lo ... iUXFTJYIP/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Post Reply