Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they shot

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

If he is reporting what he believes it is not fraud.

Regardless, the following is what the judge has been quoted as saying.

​

He didn't point the alleged weapon at anyone. Witness credibility damaged.

 

[Excon]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

He didn't point the alleged weapon at anyone.

Which was already acknowledged.
But his swinging is a dangerous situation to all.
And then we are speaking to a heightened situation where observation is known to become skewed.

Witness credibility damaged.

Not the issue.
The guy had a gun which appeared real and was swinging it around.

 

[SocialD]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

Was it possible to see this outcome coming about?
Did the caller know this?
Did the caller lie about circumstances to heighten the possibility of a shooting?

Looking at how that municipal judge ruled, it will be awful hard to convict above Manslaughter. But negligence? Try fraud.

Fraud sure but fraud is not a violent crime so linking it to a death wouldn't fit is what im saying. he could certainly be charged with multiple offenses though.

 

[Excon]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

he could certainly be charged with multiple offenses though.

And yet the Judge only indicated one offense he could possibly charged with, a misdemeanor.

 

[SocialD]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

And yet the Judge only indicated one offense he could possibly charged with, a misdemeanor.

Well, given that we had a judge let off that kid for affluenza and just give him probation when he was responsible for multiple deaths im not surprised unfortunately.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

Which was already acknowledged.
But his swinging is a dangerous situation to all.
And then we are speaking to a heightened situation where observation is known to become skewed.



Not the issue.
The guy had a gun which appeared real and was swinging it around.

When you damage credibility you damage all testimony. The way in which the witness presented the situation heightened the police response by implying a possible hostage situation.

 

[Excon]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

Well, given that we had a judge let off that kid for affluenza and just give him probation when he was responsible for multiple deaths im not surprised unfortunately.

Your reply is indicative of your lack of understanding.
1. Different State different laws.
2. No kid was left off because of affluenza.
He received the same type of sentence available to others.

 

[Excon]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

When you damage credibility you damage all testimony. The way in which the witness presented the situation heightened the police response by implying a possible hostage situation.

And again. Credibility is not the issue here.

The guy had a gun which appeared real and was swinging it around.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

Yeah it really should be some kind of manslaughter/negligent homicide or something, but I doubt it technically meets the requirements.

Then by definition it should not result in a manslaughter or negligent homicide charge.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

Oh they'll get on him on something serious. I seem to remember something abut this story.

Words I never like to hear in relationship to acts of what is supposed to be the handing out of justice.

Justice and retribution are two very different things.

 

[SocialD]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

Your reply is indicative of your lack of understanding.
1. Different State different laws.
2. No kid was left off because of affluenza.
He received the same type of sentence available to others.

DUI and 4 cases of automobile homicide is the same sentence others get you say? Yet this other kid got 10 years for punching someone who died from the punch.
Judge Jen Boyd Black Teen Prison - Business Insider

Both 16 at the time of the crime. one punched one guy and the guy died and he got 10 years in juvenile lockup. while the other DUI and 4 people killed in automobile homicide and he got rehab and 10 yrs probation.

doesn't seem equitable to me.

 

[Excon]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

DUI and 4 cases of automobile homicide is the same sentence others get you say? Yet this other kid got 10 years for punching someone who died from the punch.
Judge Jen Boyd Black Teen Prison - Business Insider

Both 16 at the time of the crime. one punched one guy and the guy died and he got 10 years in juvenile lockup. while the other DUI and 4 people killed in automobile homicide and he got rehab and 10 yrs probation.

doesn't seem equitable to me.

1. You failed to address your lame assertion that a kid was let off for affluenza.
2. You first showed a lack of understanding regarding the issue, now you double down on that by providing an article where you again show you do not understand what was presented in the article.

The acts are not similar, one was an accident and therefore reckless under the law, while the other was an intentional act of harm.
Regardless of the inequitable nature of the crimes, both were offered the same type of sentence.

As I stated: "He received the same type of sentence available to others." The youth was also offered rehab (same type of sentence) but no facility would take him.
Because no facility would take him he then got sentenced to juvenile detention and as the article pointed out, he likely will not serve that entire sentence. The article also reported as to why no facility would take him, because of the violet nature of his offense.

 

[SocialD]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

1. You failed to address your lame assertion that a kid was let off for affluenza.
2. You first showed a lack of understanding regarding the issue, now you double down on that by providing an article where you again show you do not understand what was presented in the article.

The acts are not similar, one was an accident and therefore reckless under the law, while the other was an intentional act of harm.
Regardless of the inequitable nature of the crimes, both were offered the same type of sentence.

As I stated: "He received the same type of sentence available to others." The youth was also offered rehab (same type of sentence) but no facility would take him.
Because no facility would take him he then got sentenced to juvenile detention and as the article pointed out, he likely will not serve that entire sentence. The article also reported as to why no facility would take him, because of the violet nature of his offense.

Putting aside your angry need to try and slip in insults wherever you can, yes one was intentional, however, .. how do you compare One death to 4 dead , 5 injured, a DUI, driving on a restricted license and also theft of beer from a store?
Plus the no facility would take him because of his violent nature was only speculation by couch's lawyer.
Also per several articles the prosecution was seeking 20 years, it was only after the psychologist testimony that 'suffered from the condition in which children — generally from richer families — have a sense of entitlement, are irresponsible, and make excuses for poor behavior because parents have not set proper boundaries.' that he got the rehab and probation.

Also, the same judge gave another 16 yr old 20 years for dui and auto homicide.
Fatal crash in 2004 drew different sentence from Tarrant judge | The Star-Telegram

 

[Derp]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

If someone went into a store with the intent to shoot people, why would they wait until they were inside the store to load the gun? and at one point the caller sounds like he really doesn't know for sure what the guy with the gun is doing. Seems to me the 911 dispatchers should have picked up on this BS caller.

 

[Excon]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

If someone went into a store with the intent to shoot people, why would they wait until they were inside the store to load the gun?

Hmmm? Let's think about that.

It could be said that a person who is going to shoot up a place isn't thinking straight to begin with. Depending on circumstances, loading in the store may just be reflective of that non-straight thinking.

And it is definitely nothing the call-taker should be questioning as bs.

 

[Excon]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

Putting aside your angry need to try and slip in insults wherever you can, yes one was intentional,

Angry need? Insults?
Hilarious.
Accurate information was stated.
You displayed a lack of understanding and even did it again. (And have now done it again for a third time. (see below))
You also made a claim not based in fact which makes it lame.

If you think pointing these things out is an insult or prompted by some angry need, you are woefully mistaken.

however, .. how do you compare One death to 4 dead , 5 injured,

I already pointed out the differences. One is an intentional act of violence and the other is not. It is the law that distinguishes these differences. Maybe you should endeavor to learn that difference so you understand.

Your reply is also irrelevant as it was already pointed out to you in response that the two were offered the same "type" of sentence.

Plus the no facility would take him because of his violent nature was only speculation by couch's lawyer.

No, it was speculation from the founder of the facility (you know, someone who knows what is likely to prohibit acceptance) that took Couch.

A treatment program likely didn’t accept the boy responsible because of the violent nature of his crime, Jamison Monroe, founder and CEO of Newport Academy — the facility where Couch will undergo his treatment — told the Tarrant County News. ​

This reply of yours is also irrelevant as it was already pointed out to you in response that the two were offered the same "type" of sentence. There was no inequality of the kind you stated.

Also, the same judge gave another 16 yr old 20 years for dui and auto homicide.
Fatal crash in 2004 drew different sentence from Tarrant judge | The Star-Telegram

Even though the article provided for you the difference, If you do not understand the differences in the acts committed I can not help you.
This one is different because the kid committed a felony first by stealing the pick up.

One big difference in the Miller case is that he committed a felony when stealing the pickup. Under the Texas Penal Code, a person can be charged with murder if, while committing a felony, he or she also performs an act clearly dangerous to human life and causes the death of another person.

“If you’re committing a felony and you murder someone, that’s a lot more serious,” Pham said. “It allows the prosecution to substitute intent.”​

And still that twenty was to a juvenile detention facility. Which as already reported they do not usually do not get transferred to an adult facility to do the full term.

 

[Excon]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

Also per several articles the prosecution was seeking 20 years, it was only after the psychologist testimony that 'suffered from the condition in which children — generally from richer families — have a sense of entitlement, are irresponsible, and make excuses for poor behavior because parents have not set proper boundaries.' that he got the rehab and probation.

Irrelevant.
She was following the law, which for juveniles, focuses on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

It does treat everyone equally, but each individual case is different which gives an appearance to the ill-informed that it does not.

When this case was first discussed folks were making racial claims of supposed inequality.
But that nonsense was shown the door when it was pointed out that this Judge was willing to sentence a juvenile murderer to the same type of treatment program but no facility would take him.

This is a Juvenile justice issue where the law basically requires rehab and treatment instead of prison.


[...]


All this hoopla about “affluenza” is just ill-informed bs.

As was reported at the time.

That particular defense, however, played no part in the judge’s decision, Couch’s lawyer told reporters on Wednesday.

Judge Orders Texas Teen Ethan Couch to Rehab for Driving Drunk, Killing 4​

And it wasn't a "defense".

It’s easy to forget now. But under now-retired state District Judge Jean Boyd’s sentence, Couch did not walk free.

He was ordered to treatment and probation, a rigid reporting system that some teenagers hate more than prison.

In the news report on Couch’s sentencing, one of his attorneys said as much.

Lawyer Scott Brown said Couch would have to be “under the thumb of the justice system for the next 10 years.”

Prosecutors had asked for 20 years in juvenile and adult detention, but juveniles are rarely transferred to adult prisons.

And we also forget this now.

But Couch’s substance-abuse treatment and probation wasn’t something his parents bought, or something Boyd thought up.

Under Texas law, most juveniles are supposed to be sent to treatment. Judges aren’t supposed to lock them up, unless there is a high risk of violence.

Specifically, the law calls for “treatment, training, and rehabilitation that emphasizes the accountability and responsibility of both the parent and the child for the child’s conduct.”

[...]

Boyd’s sentence was typical in Texas, even with a psychologist’s offhand comment in the penalty phase about Couch’s “affluenza.”

Oh, and we forget this, too: There was no “affluenza defense.”

The psychologist’s comment was an aside in explaining that Couch had no sense of right and wrong and his parents taught him, “If it feels good, do it.”

Blame Ethan Couch, not probation or ‘affluenza’ line ​

 

[Derp]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

Hmmm? Let's think about that.

It could be said that a person who is going to shoot up a place isn't thinking straight to begin with. Depending on circumstances, loading in the store may just be reflective of that non-straight thinking.

And it is definitely nothing the call-taker should be questioning as bs.

At first he says the guy is trying to load it and was asked by dispatcher "just trying to load it?" "Yah" then says "looks like he was trying to load it, I don't know"... yep BS

 

[Excon]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

At first he says the guy is trying to load it and was asked by dispatcher "just trying to load it?" "Yah" then says "looks like he was trying to load it, I don't know"... yep BS

1. Not an accurate quote. Try watching the video. Start @01:09.

2. Not bs. An on site perception from an individual who was concerned enough to call. There exists no reason for the call-taker to question it.

You have no valid point.

​

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

Thanks.

You're more than welcome. I didn't post the video here because of it's graphic and emotional nature, otherwise I would have done so for you.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

Here's what he was carrying around:

View attachment 67199915

When my boys were younger, they both had AirSoft AK-47's that looked 100% real.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

Taken in 3 parts....

John Crawford was a grown ass man and for some reason felt like it was a good idea to pick up a replica firearm (bb gun) and carry it around the store. He spent several minutes standing in the pet food section waving the gun around. Is there logic to that action? Reason? Knowing that the weapon being waved looked real, what would you think if you observed that individual from several aisles away?

The Police responded to a call from a dispatcher stating the individual in the store was carrying what was to be a loaded rifle and waving it around. I think you can wonder about the opening series of events. What DOESNT make sense was that after the police arrived, Crawford dropped the weapon and dived around the corner, but then darted BACK towards the weapon.

The person making the 911 call. What did he see? What did he know? He saw a man carrying what looked like a real gun. He saw the man fiddling with it and stated (as per the audio) it looks like he is loading it. I dont know. He also stated he spent most of the time waving the gun around. How would you describe waving the gun around?

It seems to me that in accordance with good samaritan laws, if he had a reasonable belief that in fact the individual was carrying a firearm and presenting as a threat o himself or others, that he couldnt be charged. There would have to be some sort of actual evidence that he was intentionally misrepresenting the case.

At least 3 moving parts in this situation.

 

[SocialD]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

Irrelevant.
She was following the law, which for juveniles, focuses on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

​

Well she did so inconsistently among 3 different juvenile people. the one who got the mildest 'rehabiltitation' was the one who did the most damage.

 

[Derp]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

1. Not an accurate quote. Try watching the video. Start @01:09.

2. Not bs. An on site perception from an individual who was concerned enough to call. There exists no reason for the call-taker to question it.

You have no valid point.

​

What is not accurate about what I quoted?

 

[Excon]

Re: Wlamart 911-Caller Ronald Ritchie to be indicted for Lying to Police before they

Well she did so inconsistently among 3 different juvenile people. the one who got the mildest 'rehabiltitation' was the one who did the most damage.

Wrong.
Again you show the same you showed each time previously.

Each case because of their differences are irrelevant to the others.
She applied the law consistently in each case.

In two of those cases, Couch and the 14 year old were both given sentences that allowed for rehab in-place of incarceration. Rehab facilities not taking the 14 year old because of the violent nature of his crime has nothing to do with her application of the law.