Ben Crump Joins Corey Ruiz Case as Key Evidence Remains Unreleased
The central question is not whether one viral clip tells the entire story. It is whether Ruiz’s family is demanding the full video record after a Madison police officer killed him.
Developing story: This report reflects information available as of 9:52 p.m. EDT on July 23. Kin+ will update it as investigators release additional evidence.
Corey Ruiz’s family has retained civil-rights attorney Ben Crump. But the biggest development in the case is not the name of the lawyer now standing beside them.
It is the evidence the public still has not seen.
Ruiz, 38, was shot and killed by a Madison, Wisconsin, police officer on Wednesday, July 22. Bystander videos captured part of the struggle and the gunfire. Madison police say Ruiz produced a fixed-blade knife, injured an officer and was shot after a Taser failed. Crump’s legal team says the available video shows Ruiz was Tased, taken to the ground and shot several times at close range.
Those are competing accounts of a fast, deadly encounter. Neither a police statement nor an attorney’s statement is the completed investigation.
Now Madison’s independent police monitor says her office has not received the name of the officer who fired or the evidence the department collected. She plans to use a subpoena to obtain it.
That makes the central demand plain: release the complete record needed to test every claim.
What police say happened
According to the Madison Police Department’s incident report, officers were dispatched to the Marquette neighborhood after reports that someone was stealing bicycles and checking vehicle doors.
Police said officers located the man, but he rode away on a bicycle through nearby backyards. Officers encountered him again around 1:35 p.m. at South Baldwin and Williamson streets.
The department says investigators are still determining whether Ruiz fell from the bicycle or officers pulled him from it. A struggle followed in the intersection.
Police Chief John Patterson said Ruiz produced a fixed-blade knife and injured an officer. Officers then attempted to use a Taser, which Patterson described as unsuccessful. The officer allegedly injured by the knife fired his gun. A second officer was hurt during the encounter, although police have not said how.
Ruiz was taken to a hospital and pronounced dead. Four officers who participated in or witnessed the encounter were placed on administrative leave. The officer who fired has been described as an 11-year veteran, but authorities have not released his name.
The Wisconsin Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation is leading the outside investigation. Once that work is complete, the findings are expected to go to the Dane County District Attorney’s Office for review.
What the videos show—and what they do not
Multiple bystanders recorded portions of the encounter. Wisconsin Public Radio reported that at least three shots can be heard. Other reporting describes the publicly circulating footage as appearing to show the shots fired after officers had brought Ruiz to the ground.
Crump said his legal team’s review of the video shows Ruiz was Tased, taken down and shot multiple times at close range, including in the face. He said the case must be examined for excessive force. Crump and Ruiz’s family are calling for the release of all footage showing the shooting and what led to it, including squad-car and bystander video, according to WMTV.
That is the family’s allegation. It has not yet been established as an investigative finding.
Patterson has cautioned that the viral clips show only part of the incident. Police say investigators are reviewing additional video that has not circulated publicly. The chief also said video he reviewed does not support online claims that Ruiz was already handcuffed when he was shot, ABC News reported.
The videos available to the public establish that a violent struggle occurred and that shots were fired at close range. They do not, by themselves, resolve whether Ruiz still possessed or controlled the knife at the moment the officer fired, why the Taser failed, or whether the use of deadly force complied with law and department policy.
Madison officers do not wear body cameras. That makes the unreleased squad-car, business-surveillance and bystander recordings even more important.
The independent monitor says she is being blocked
Madison’s interim independent police monitor, Aeiramique Glass, told reporters that police had not given her the shooter’s name or the material the department supplied to state investigators. Glass said she planned to subpoena the evidence and accused the department and city of obstructing the civilian-oversight office’s work, according to The Washington Post and Wisconsin Watch.
Patterson said he is committed to working with the monitor, while maintaining that state law requires the department to provide the material to the Division of Criminal Investigation.
That dispute matters. Madison created its civilian police-oversight system after the 2020 racial-justice protests. An oversight office cannot independently review police conduct if it must fight the police department for the basic evidence needed to do the job.
What remains unknown
Authorities still have not publicly answered several questions:
Who fired the fatal shots, and what are the names and roles of the other three officers?
Did Ruiz still possess or control the knife when the officer fired?
What happened before the publicly circulating videos begin?
Why was the Taser unsuccessful?
How much time passed between the Taser deployment and the gunfire?
What do the complete squad-car, surveillance and bystander recordings show?
What were Ruiz’s precise injuries, and what will the autopsy establish?
Will state investigators and the district attorney conclude that the shooting was legally justified?
When will Madison’s independent monitor receive the evidence needed for a separate review?
Now, the read
Transparency does not mean choosing the police account because it came from a badge. It also does not mean treating a family attorney’s allegation as a final verdict because the public video is disturbing.
Transparency means putting the complete evidence where every material claim can be tested.
The public should not have to build a timeline from clipped social-media videos while the police department, state investigators and civilian watchdog hold different pieces of the record. When state law requires an outside investigation and city law creates civilian oversight, those systems should strengthen each other—not become competing locks on the same evidence.
And Ruiz’s past cannot be used as a shortcut around the question that actually matters. The legal and moral issue is what happened during this encounter, what threat existed at the moment deadly force was used, and whether that force was necessary. A person’s record is not a blank check for the state.
What this means for us
Black America has seen this movie too many times: a short video races across the internet, police release the first institutional narrative, a family demands answers, and the public is told to wait without being told what will be released or when.
Waiting for evidence can be responsible. Withholding a release plan is not transparency.
The answer is not trial by viral clip. The answer is a public record strong enough to survive scrutiny—from the family, the community, the independent monitor, prosecutors and the press.
The move
Madison and state investigators should publish a clear evidence-release schedule; release the officer’s identity under the applicable protocol; preserve and disclose the complete, unedited video record with necessary protections for private information; and explain every delay in plain language.
Witnesses should preserve original files, including metadata, rather than editing or repeatedly reposting compressed copies. Anyone with original footage should provide it to state investigators and may also contact the Ruiz family’s legal representatives.
Kin Nation should share verified reporting, not rumors. Follow the source record, watch what gets released, and pay close attention to whether Madison’s civilian watchdog receives the access her office was created to have.
Welcome home.
