911 Caller Faces Charges For Giving Cops Bad Info Before Fatal Police Shooting

[Arctish]

If this article is correct, Ritchie has something of a history of making inaccurate statements. Claiming to be an ex-Marine when he was kicked out after 7 weeks for a "fraudulent enlistment", claiming Crawford was loading the weapon, claiming Crawford was pointing it at children, etc.

There's also this account:



It looks like there's enough evidence to go to trial, if it comes to that.

That doesn't imply anything other than for the specific time period the family is choosing to focus upon..
It is suspicious that they keep trying to make claims only about specific time points rather than just saying that the tape shows the Crawford never does anything that could be interpreted as pointing the gun at anyone. It implies that either the tape does show him do that at some point other than the time period they are talking about, or that there is some period of time where Crawford is not captured on camera and thus could have done what Ritchie claimed. If either of those is true, then they have no case.

Wal Marts have security cameras everywhere. I doubt there's anything Crawford did from the moment he pulled into the parking lot that wasn't recorded.

The authorities and the family lawyers have synched the recording of the 911 call to the security camera footage. They have solid evidence that Ritchie was reporting things that simply did not happen. The part about Crawford not moving while Ritchie was reporting he was using the gun to move things around is just one example of the discrepancy between Ritchie's account and actual events.

Ritchie made several false statements to the 911 operator, and those statements were factors in Crawford's death. At the very least he should be charged with making false statements to the police. Whether he'll be convicted of a crime remains to be seen.

 

[ronburgundy]

If this article is correct, Ritchie has something of a history of making inaccurate statements. Claiming to be an ex-Marine when he was kicked out after 7 weeks for a "fraudulent enlistment", claiming Crawford was loading the weapon, claiming Crawford was pointing it at children, etc.

There's also this account:



It looks like there's enough evidence to go to trial, if it comes to that.

Yeah, that sounds pretty damning. He gave the cops radically false information and caused them to overreact.

Again, all the statements about the video go out of their way to refer to only limited time frame. To have a winnable case against him, they need to show that Crawford is on camera every second and that the muzzle never once is close to pointing in a direction that would put anyone in danger if it were a real gun.
Their carefully lawyer crafted comments make it plausible that the video doesn't meet those criteria and merely fail to corroborate Ritchie rather than refute him.

Ritchie's own revised statement doesn't seem to indict him because he only said Crawford did not "shoulder the gun and point it at people", which allows infinite ways in which he could still have been "like, pointing it at people" as he said in the 911 call.

 

[Deepak]

So, more careful reading suggests there may be little evidence that what the caller said was even incorrect (let alone a deliberate lie).

"The court does note that at the time that Ronald Ritchie is relaying to dispatch that Mr. Crawford is pointing the gun at two children, the video does not depict this event," the judge wrote.

That is some rather deliberate language indicating that there is nothing to confirm that Crawford didn't at some point do something close to what Ritchie stated, but rather that "at the time" Ritchie was talking to dispatch there was no video evidence that Crawford was doing that during that moment. IF the video clearly showed Crawford the entire time he is in the store and he never does anything like Ritchie described, then the judge would have said more clearly that there there is nothing in the video consistent with with Ritchie's description, or even that the video clearly contradicts him.

Regardless, that doesn't change the larger discussion of the issue that cops must rely to some extent on witness claims when making split second response decisions, and that even if its hard to prosecute, inaccurate reports to police are a serious and consequential ethical failing, even when they are not outright lies.

The judge only determines if there's enough meat on the bone to warrant the case not being dismissed on its face. He's not going to argue the prosecution's (or defense's) case with strong language regarding guilt.

Moreover, I think Ritchie's language is a bit stronger than the quote actually makes out. If you watch the video footage that's synced up with the 911 call it's pretty clear that Ritchie was pretty imperatively stating that Crawford had just pointed the gun at children while there were children in the aisle, who certainly seemed unhurried about the whole situation, and where Crawford is clearly not pointing the gun at them. And the fact that he didn't mention it before that moment pretty much rules out that it happened earlier.

The testimony from My Cousin Vinny had mistakes in it - Ritchie was inventing a fiction that he again confirmed with the dispatcher, and possibly materialized a non-existent child after (08:25:30 imprinted timestamp).

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8CZ7fH7i_M[/YOUTUBE]

 

[RavenSky]

Yeah he deserves to be prosecuted and convicted.

 

[Godless Raven]

Yeah he deserves to be prosecuted and convicted.

Prosecuted AND convicted before the evidence is even heard? Interesting. (I'm assuming you're talking about the 911 caller and not the police officer, correct me if I'm wrong)

There's a problem with that 911 call in sync with the security video. It subconsciously gives one the impression this birds eye view is what the caller was seeing when he called.

Where is he standing in correlation with this video and what else is going on? He talks to at least one other person during the recording and they may have been watching too and feeding him info to tell the police. We do not know. What is clear on the audio recording is that more than once he says "I don't know" or "it looks like" etc. You also cannot see what is going on in the isle adjacent to where he's standing at the end. Are there people further down that way? How far away was the 911 caller from the guy with the gun? Because he took that gun out of a box, but if the caller didn't see that part, he'd have no idea where that gun came from. All we can see in the video is someone taking a rifle, putting it on their shoulder, they appear to hold it up to aim it at one point (not to their face, but at a waist high level), and they are playing with the gun quite a bit.

Also at the point where the caller says he's loading the gun, it does look like he's playing around with the middle part of the gun like he's trying to load it or something that could be mistaken for it (but it's too hard to tell what he's doing from so far away).

The caller did state he was pointing his gun at people at the beginning of the call, but he's clearly referring to something that's already happened when he does and we don't see a recording of that time period here, so who knows. But later she asks if he's pointing it at anyone then...and he could have just lied and said "yes", but he says "I can't see...", which makes it seem unlikely he was lying before (although he could have just been mistaken).

Later the caller says "I don't know what he's doing, he's just pointing it at things" and that's exactly what it looks like on the video, he's not pointing it up high, he appears to be looking through the sites at a downward angle, first in the direction of the shelf, then he pivots to his left still holding it the same way.



There is zero reason to believe the 911 caller had any ill intent during his call. There's nothing on his call to indicate he in any way profiled the person that was shot. There's nothing to indicate that he was lying. It may have looked how he described from where he was standing and look very different from a ceiling camera 50 feet away and 20 feet high. The caller is capable of being in error. Someone else could have said they saw something and he repeated it. There are a whole lot of explanations including that he described exactly what he thought he saw. With zero evidence of any nefarious doing and a whole lot of possible explanations for what happened that day...to say he deserves to be prosecuted and convicted seems coo coo.

The police...I can't imagine what it would be like to get a call like that, particularly in the USA with all the gun violence that takes place down there and to go in thinking you're probably facing a crazed gunman. It just seems like they could have surrounded him without him noticing, evacuated near by people and gave him more of a chance to surrender...it looks like they rushed in and shot him in less time than it would take someone to think and drop their gun. What a fucking tragedy.

On a personal note, this could have been me. I was shopping in the USA with my parents when I was 16 and I picked up a BB gun rifle with a scope in...I think it was Target, but I am not 100% sure...and I thought it was the coolest thing ever. They didn't carry them in regular retail stores in Canada back then and I started holding it up and aiming around the store. I was so fucking stupid I aimed it at people way across the store because I wanted to see how powerful the scope was. I pulled back the bolt, you name it and even though I was only 16 I was around 6'4 and 240lbs. Instead of being shot, my dad caught me and tore a strip off of me, explaining how serious it looked to someone else just seeing me point that thing around and he specifically said "that looks like a real gun, you go pointing that thing at people and cop is going to see you and they won't know you're a dummy with a toy and they will shoot you and it won't be their fault". He was so pissed at me that I learned right then and there to never do anything so stupid. This poor kid didn't live long enough to get that speech

 

[Deepak]

He doesn't seem very unsure when he tells the dispatcher Crawford pointed the gun at the children. He also repeated that he saw Crawford point the gun at the children during his interview with Ohio CI. He's making a pretty emphatic statement here, unlike his statement about Crawford loading a gun. Check out the video timestamp I pointed out above again. Ritchie volunteers that Crawford pointed the gun at children, and when the dispatcher asks him to confirm he responds in the affirmative - not that he's unsure.

He also stated that he called police as soon as Crawford started walking toward the pets department, so the time elapsed where Crawford could have been pointing it at people while off-camera is relatively short.

Ritchie statement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71VpZxAOXzk

 

[RavenSky]

Ritchie statement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71VpZxAOXzk

This video brings up a very good point that too often gets overlooked by those defending Ronald Ritchie's actions that lead to the police shooting of an innocent black man...

and innocent woman also died of a heart attack because of the commotion caused entirely by Ritchie's lying and exaggerations on the 911 call.

What really bugs me about his entire 911 call is that he has to know the effect his choice of words will have. In his statement (on the above video), he comments that he thought Crawford was going to head into the tool section but changed course to the pet section because Ritchie and his wife were in the tool section. He doesn't say that in the 911 call. Someone avoiding other people does not sound like someone intending to shoot up a Walmart. I also noted that in the 911 call, Ritchie never indicates that Crawford is saying/yelling anything at anyone (and indeed you cannot hear Crawford saying/yelling anything in the background, nor see him doing so in the video). That, imo, is important information that Ritchie omitted. Generally, if someone is "waving" a rifle around "muzzle check[ing]" people, the gunman is also yelling at people. Snipers, otoh, are quiet but not visible or "waving" their gun around.

All of that said, Ritchie choose his words carefully to convey danger to people unable to see what he could see. He created this situation in which TWO innocent people died.

P.S. And if this asshole owned 3 AR-15s, how come he couldn't tell a BB gun from a real AR-15?

 

[Godless Raven]

He doesn't seem very unsure when he tells the dispatcher Crawford pointed the gun at the children. He also repeated that he saw Crawford point the gun at the children during his interview with Ohio CI. He's making a pretty emphatic statement here, unlike his statement about Crawford loading a gun. Check out the video timestamp I pointed out above again. Ritchie volunteers that Crawford pointed the gun at children, and when the dispatcher asks him to confirm he responds in the affirmative - not that he's unsure.

He also stated that he called police as soon as Crawford started walking toward the pets department, so the time elapsed where Crawford could have been pointing it at people while off-camera is relatively short.

Ritchie statement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71VpZxAOXzk

I agree that unlike his statement about loading the gun he does sound more sure about him pointing the gun at children. But here's the problem...1. we don't know what angle the 911 caller is standing at when he reports this and it may have looked that way. You don't fucking prosecute witnesses for describing what they think they saw even when they are incorrect. Why would he think he saw that? Maybe because the guy does swing the gun shortly before the family appears on the same camera he's shown on...but because we don't know the angle the 911 caller is standing at, he may be standing on the other side of that door in the 1st camera angle and saw the gun swing after the family had passed his line of vision, which might make someone think it was done at their direction. 2. It is possible that the blurry camera footage we are looking at does not show everything going on. Look at the part of the video where he says he saw him point the gun at kids...he appears to be holding the rifle in his left arm at that point (as it looks like it a few seconds before). At that angle, with the dark gun and dark clothes he's wearing, you couldn't tell if he raised his arm laterally. Even just a foot or two like he is doing throughout the video at various times. At the side view of the guy, you wouldn't be able to really detect it in the video. Are these two examples what happened? I do not know, but they are possible and they would make any attempt to prosecute someone for reporting what they thought they saw nothing less than a witch hunt after an innocent person. Who the hell would want that?

You do not know how far away the pet department is from where he first saw him and you do not know how fast he was moving (apparently he doesn't move around very fast based on the video we can see and we have no idea if he stopped along the way to stare at other shelves while he talked on his phone or fiddled with the gun). You are literally just making up that it was a relatively short amount of time. Also...if he called police as soon as Crawford started walking towards the pets department, how does that infer anything about how long he was observing him wherever he was before that? (Is this part of your video link? If it is, please indicate where approx if you can. It's about an hour long and I'm just starting it )

Thanks for the link!

 

[Godless Raven]

.

P.S. And if this asshole owned 3 AR-15s, how come he couldn't tell a BB gun from a real AR-15?

Because...nobody can from a distance, including trained police. I challenge anyone to honestly attempt to identify which of the following images are the real AR15's and submachine guns and which are the BB gun/air softs.













ANSWER:

Show

If you guessed any of those images were real, you are incorrect. They are all BB or airsoft...or are they?

 

[Arctish]

You don't fucking prosecute witnesses for describing what they think they saw even when they are incorrect.

You do when you have evidence they deliberately and knowingly made a false report to the police. If the evidence is deemed sufficient by a judge to proceed to trial, you should proceed. You might not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but a false report that leads to a death is not something that should be dismissed out of hand.

The rest of your post is mostly about raising doubt that Ritchie deliberately and knowingly lied, which is fine. I'm sure his lawyers will make similar arguments. If the Prosecution has more video evidence from different angles, we probably won't see it until it's released at trial.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

P.S. And if this asshole owned 3 AR-15s, how come he couldn't tell a BB gun from a real AR-15?

Because the "gun" in question is a realistic replica. The good ones can fool weapons experts from a distance.


The real problem here is that we treat them as toys despite the danger of bystanders confusing them with the real thing which occasionally causes problems where a cop treats them as real while the person holding it doesn't realize the problem because they know it's a toy.

I think the law should be changed to treat playing with a realistic replica as if it were a real weapon unless you're in a situation where others would know it's just a toy.

 

[Godless Raven]

You don't fucking prosecute witnesses for describing what they think they saw even when they are incorrect.

You do when you have evidence they deliberately and knowingly made a false report to the police. If the evidence is deemed sufficient by a judge to proceed to trial, you should proceed. You might not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but a false report that leads to a death is not something that should be dismissed out of hand.

The rest of your post is mostly about raising doubt that Ritchie deliberately and knowingly lied, which is fine. I'm sure his lawyers will make similar arguments. If the Prosecution has more video evidence from different angles, we probably won't see it until it's released at trial.

What evidence do you have that Ritchie lied vs was incorrect? So far there has been zero...which is why I find it incredible that there are so few people saying "we don't know" vs a witch hunt. We don't even know where he was standing while he witnessed what he saw and it makes a HUGE difference as to what something might appear like. Insinuating that he knew it was not a real gun because he'd used or owned real guns is not an unbiased view of the facts. Insinuating he lied when he may have seen something completely different than we do from a high up security video is not an impartial view of the case. Insinuating he couldn't have just been mistaken (like most eye witnesses are to varying degrees, and we all know this) and saying it's a clear case for charges when there is zero evidence for that is just...wow.

Maybe he lied and intentionally called the cops hoping they could come to the Walmart he was at with his girlfriend and and wished they would see them shoot some child killing maniac whom he knew was only goofing around with a toy gun because he was (BAF) black as fuck.

If it's true, he's a horrible human being that should be prosecuted, but nothing on that 911 call indicates or implies any of that. Common sense would tell you it's pretty fucking unlikely. But I guess...technically... it's possible.

 

[Arctish]

You do when you have evidence they deliberately and knowingly made a false report to the police. If the evidence is deemed sufficient by a judge to proceed to trial, you should proceed. You might not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but a false report that leads to a death is not something that should be dismissed out of hand.

The rest of your post is mostly about raising doubt that Ritchie deliberately and knowingly lied, which is fine. I'm sure his lawyers will make similar arguments. If the Prosecution has more video evidence from different angles, we probably won't see it until it's released at trial.

What evidence do you have that Ritchie lied vs was incorrect? So far there has been zero...which is why I find it incredible that there are so few people saying "we don't know" vs a witch hunt. We don't even know where he was standing while he witnessed what he saw and it makes a HUGE difference as to what something might appear like. Insinuating that he knew it was not a real gun because he'd used or owned real guns is not an unbiased view of the facts. Insinuating he lied when he may have seen something completely different than we do from a high up security video is not an impartial view of the case. Insinuating he couldn't have just been mistaken (like most eye witnesses are to varying degrees, and we all know this) and saying it's a clear case for charges when there is zero evidence for that is just...wow.

The evidence isn't zero. From the OP:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ronald-ritchie-john-crawford_us_57065a21e4b0b90ac2714e86

An Ohio judge found probable cause this week to charge the man whose 911 call led to police officers storming a Walmart and fatally shooting 22-year-old John Crawford III.

The judge found probable cause to charge Ritchie with a crime. I don't know exactly what or how much evidence was presented, but it had to be some amount greater than zero. So rather than assume there's nothing to this case, I'm going to take this report at face value and accept that there is sufficient evidence indicating Ritchie committed a crime that he could be formally charged.


ETA: Here's another report:

Fairborn Municipal Court Judge Beth Root ruled this week that there was sufficient evidence to show Ronald Ritchie could be prosecuted for the misdemeanor stemming from the Aug. 5, 2014, police shooting of John Crawford III in the Dayton suburb of Beavercreek.


Several citizens used an obscure state law to petition a judge to file charges against Ritchie. They submitted a copy of Wal-Mart surveillance video synchronized to the 911 call and alleged Ritchie violated several laws. The judge leaves it up to the Beavercreek city prosecutor to decide whether to charge Ritchie.

But, before anyone gets too worked up:

The judge wrote that there wasn't sufficient evidence to issue a criminal complaint against Ritchie for inciting violence, inducing panic, involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide

and

Legal experts say the law allows private citizens to make complaints and a judge can review them and make a recommendation.

"But the prosecutor is under no obligation to bring charges," said Ric Simmons, an Ohio State University criminal law professor. "It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the caller knew what he was calling in hadn't occurred."

Thaddeus Hoffmeister, a criminal law professor at the University of Dayton, said it would be difficult to prove Ritchie "knowingly caused a false alarm."

 

[Godless Raven]

What evidence do you have that Ritchie lied vs was incorrect? So far there has been zero...which is why I find it incredible that there are so few people saying "we don't know" vs a witch hunt. We don't even know where he was standing while he witnessed what he saw and it makes a HUGE difference as to what something might appear like. Insinuating that he knew it was not a real gun because he'd used or owned real guns is not an unbiased view of the facts. Insinuating he lied when he may have seen something completely different than we do from a high up security video is not an impartial view of the case. Insinuating he couldn't have just been mistaken (like most eye witnesses are to varying degrees, and we all know this) and saying it's a clear case for charges when there is zero evidence for that is just...wow.

The evidence isn't zero. From the OP:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ronald-ritchie-john-crawford_us_57065a21e4b0b90ac2714e86

An Ohio judge found probable cause this week to charge the man whose 911 call led to police officers storming a Walmart and fatally shooting 22-year-old John Crawford III.

The judge found probable cause to charge Ritchie with a crime. I don't know exactly what or how much evidence was presented, but it had to be some amount greater than zero. So rather than assume there's nothing to this case, I'm going to take this report at face value and accept that there is sufficient evidence indicating Ritchie committed a crime that he could be formally charged.


ETA: Here's another report:

Fairborn Municipal Court Judge Beth Root ruled this week that there was sufficient evidence to show Ronald Ritchie could be prosecuted for the misdemeanor stemming from the Aug. 5, 2014, police shooting of John Crawford III in the Dayton suburb of Beavercreek.


Several citizens used an obscure state law to petition a judge to file charges against Ritchie. They submitted a copy of Wal-Mart surveillance video synchronized to the 911 call and alleged Ritchie violated several laws. The judge leaves it up to the Beavercreek city prosecutor to decide whether to charge Ritchie.

But, before anyone gets too worked up:

The judge wrote that there wasn't sufficient evidence to issue a criminal complaint against Ritchie for inciting violence, inducing panic, involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide

and

Legal experts say the law allows private citizens to make complaints and a judge can review them and make a recommendation.

"But the prosecutor is under no obligation to bring charges," said Ric Simmons, an Ohio State University criminal law professor. "It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the caller knew what he was calling in hadn't occurred."

Thaddeus Hoffmeister, a criminal law professor at the University of Dayton, said it would be difficult to prove Ritchie "knowingly caused a false alarm."

1. Not so fast...I didn't say there was zero evidence that he knowingly lied. In fact I very carefully said it's possible he lied. What I said was that there are people on this thread advocating he be prosecuted AND convicted and none of you have presented any evidence that he did anything intentional other than to cite that a judge found something sufficient (that is not the same thing and you know it). The evidence presented is zero. The evidence known from posters on this thread is zero. There's a judge that says there is enough to consider charges. Okay, but we don't know what and that's a far cry from someone being convicted of intentionally causing the deaths of 2 people. In fact, its not just a far cry, it's incredibly reckless. Why bother with the trial if you are going to go right to conviction? Sounds like a great world...if you like living in an Orwellian nightmare.

2. I watched Ritchie's entire police interview and he's a total asshat. I would never want to spend time with someone like that, ever. But I think we can all agree that asshats can witness things and think they are seeing a crime and report it and asshats can sometimes be incorrect about something without it being related to them being an asshat. I think the two deaths i this case are a tragedy. I think the police officer that shot Crawford and whomever decided on the approach they went in with should be investigated because there just seemed like it could have been handled in a way that allowed for more time for Crawford to react, but it does look like he raised the gun just slightly (I think maybe just a slight knee jerk reaction in shock or an auto reaction to raise your hands) and he got shot with no time for a reaction. But other than the police, unless there's a lot more than this interview I do not see obvious criminal intent. Just two serious tragedies. It doesn't make it right to start going Old Testament and looking for someone's eye because SOMEBODY has to pay for this tragedy. It just doesn't.

3. It's a waste of tax payer money to pursue it unless there's some serious evidence that hasn't been mentioned yet. Do you think this guy hasn't paid enough for apparently being wrong already? His call resulted in two deaths, he's got a witch hunt after him all over social media that want him in jail (when he appears to have thought - as delusional as it sounds - that he was thwarting a terrorist attack), and he's being called a racist and killer. His life will forever be fucked because he's tied to this case forever. Now if he wasn't being evil and did all this intentionally, that's fucking horrible. That's not a fair penalty to pay for being wrong about one part of your police report. It just adds to the tragedy.

4. Other than Ritchie confessing that he knew it wasn't a real gun, there is no way to prove in court that he did because he's consistently reported that it looked like one, and most BB and Air softs do, even at the Walmart up here in Canada.

 

[RavenSky]

P.S. And if this asshole owned 3 AR-15s, how come he couldn't tell a BB gun from a real AR-15?

Because the "gun" in question is a realistic replica. The good ones can fool weapons experts from a distance.

I don't believe that

The real problem here is that we treat them as toys despite the danger of bystanders confusing them with the real thing which occasionally causes problems where a cop treats them as real while the person holding it doesn't realize the problem because they know it's a toy.

I think the law should be changed to treat playing with a realistic replica as if it were a real weapon unless you're in a situation where others would know it's just a toy.

Here is a better solution - NO REALISTIC REPLICAS

For fuck's sake Loren, in what alternative universe did you come from that thinks it is ok to outlaw owning non-weapons but never wants a single restriction on real weapons?

And, btw, Ohio is an "open carry" state. Real gun or "realistic replica", the issue wasn't the fact that Crawford was carrying a "gun". It was the fact that Ritchie called 911 at all, and then lied and exaggerated what he saw while also leaving out critical information.

 

[Derec]

For fuck's sake Loren, in what alternative universe did you come from that thinks it is ok to outlaw owning non-weapons but never wants a single restriction on real weapons?

And, btw, Ohio is an "open carry" state. Real gun or "realistic replica", the issue wasn't the fact that Crawford was carrying a "gun". It was the fact that Ritchie called 911 at all, and then lied and exaggerated what he saw while also leaving out critical information.

Open state or not you can't just wave a rifle around.

 

[RavenSky]

For fuck's sake Loren, in what alternative universe did you come from that thinks it is ok to outlaw owning non-weapons but never wants a single restriction on real weapons?

And, btw, Ohio is an "open carry" state. Real gun or "realistic replica", the issue wasn't the fact that Crawford was carrying a "gun". It was the fact that Ritchie called 911 at all, and then lied and exaggerated what he saw while also leaving out critical information.

Open state or not you can't just wave a rifle around.

1. He wasn't waving it around
2. I've read the Ohio law. Have you? The law does not prohibit *waving it* around

 

[Godless Raven]

Please ignore the video showing him clearly waving it around.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because the "gun" in question is a realistic replica. The good ones can fool weapons experts from a distance.

I don't believe that

The real problem here is that we treat them as toys despite the danger of bystanders confusing them with the real thing which occasionally causes problems where a cop treats them as real while the person holding it doesn't realize the problem because they know it's a toy.

I think the law should be changed to treat playing with a realistic replica as if it were a real weapon unless you're in a situation where others would know it's just a toy.

Here is a better solution - NO REALISTIC REPLICAS

For fuck's sake Loren, in what alternative universe did you come from that thinks it is ok to outlaw owning non-weapons but never wants a single restriction on real weapons?

And, btw, Ohio is an "open carry" state. Real gun or "realistic replica", the issue wasn't the fact that Crawford was carrying a "gun". It was the fact that Ritchie called 911 at all, and then lied and exaggerated what he saw while also leaving out critical information.

Open carry doesn't just let you wave a gun around. That's usually something along the lines of brandishing a firearm. I live in an open carry state--but waving your gun around is likely 6 months in the pokey.

 

[RavenSky]

Open carry doesn't just let you wave a gun around. That's usually something along the lines of brandishing a firearm. I live in an open carry state--but waving your gun around is likely 6 months in the pokey.

As I said to Derec...
1. He wasn't waving it around
2. I've read the Ohio law. Have you? The law does not prohibit *waving it* around