Family of man fatally shot by cop in Walmart go back to court to sue superstore
The family of a man shot dead by a cop in a Walmart store plan to go back to court to sue the superstore.
John Crawford III, 22, was in Walmart in Beavercreek, Ohio, US, in August 2014 when he was fatally shot by Officer Sean Williams after he was seen walking around the store with a pellet rifle.
A customer called the police and told officers that a Black man was holding a rifle and appeared to be loading the weapon as well as waving it near shoppers.
Police believed the 22-year-old was carrying a real gun and thought he was a danger to customers.
However, it later turned out, he was holding a Crosman MK-177 BB/pellet rifle - which he found unpackaged on a shelf in the store.
Ex-Walmart worker shares 'unethical' act company hates and sad part of job
John Crawford III was fatally shot dead by police (afp)
The scene of the crime as officer Sean Williams charged down the Walmart pet aisle (provided)According to a lawsuit filed by the Crawford family a year later, it was revealed Walmart allegedly failed to prevent the victim from carrying an unboxed pellet gun around the supermarket.
Officer Sean Williams did not face federal civil rights charges for killing Mr Crawford despite shooting him twice.
Cops claimed the victim did not obey demands to drop his weapon as a Greene County special grand jury declined to indict Mr Williams criminally.
The Crawford family are set to sue the supermarket (afp)April Beavercreek city spent over $430,000 defending Mr Williams and Sergeant David Darkow, the other officer at the scene.
Mr Crawford's family claim the money could have gone to them as part of a settlement.
And just a couple years later, the family's wrongful death claim against Walmart was dismissed by a district court judge.
However, following the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, the decision was reversed after a ruling in November 2022 said “a reasonable jury could find that Walmart failed to prevent Crawford from carrying a look-alike AR-15 openly around the store.”
The officer ran past stacks of cat litter and dog food, yelling “get down, get down, get down." (provided)The decision, though, was quickly squashed after one of the judges, who voted in favour of overturning the court's verdict, confessed she owned stocks in Walmart.
But despite not voting in Walmart's favour, she said the decision “would have required the judge’s recusal," during a letter dated March 20, 2023.
The supermarket's lawyers requested the appeals court's decision to be re-heard by another panel of judges.
Walmart stores across the US targeted with 'multiple calls reporting bombs'
Walmart's lawyers said: "The outcome of a decision is irrelevant to the recusal analysis.
“Although Judge White ultimately ruled against Walmart, her known ownership of Walmart stock required recusal before she ruled in this case. And her failure to do so creates, at minimum, the appearance of impropriety.”
Two judges granted Walmart's request on April 11 to avoid “even an appearance of impropriety.”
Crawford's family criticised the grocery store's demands and called out their "hypocrisy."
Michael Wright, a lawyer for the family, said: "Walmart’s only consistent approach is, ‘Walmart wins.
"Walmart demands the maximum remedy for a conflict rule that was intended to protect the other party, not Walmart. It is a classic game of, ‘Heads I win, tails you lose.’"
Mr Wright added the family is “disappointed that the court of appeals made the decision to empanel a new set of judges for the case.
“We think the Court of Appeals made a fair decision and we will continue to fight for this family.”
A new court date has to be confirmed yet.
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
