Good guys with guns kill good guy, gunmen still at large.

[justabubba]

So, you're a cop. You respond to shots fired in a crowded mall and a gunshot victim. You see an armed man running through the mall, and confront him. Next you:

A. Check to see if he's black or white.
B. Ask him to pretty please put down the gun.
C. make certain he's the one who did the shooting.
D. Shoot his ass and ask questions later.


Choose quickly, as he's as likely to shoot you or someone else as he is to do anything else.

just follow this instructional video for the correct answer:

 

[ttwtt78640]

From what I’ve seen the US police seem to use the gun as an extension of the law rather than as a tool to defend themselves or others. Seem to have become judge jury and executioner, crazy.

Fortunately, only a tiny minority of them do so. That, of course, is of no comfort to those that encounter those few willing to shoot first and figure matters out later.

 

[calamity]

So, you're a cop. You respond to shots fired in a crowded mall and a gunshot victim. You see an armed man running through the mall, and confront him. Next you:

A. Check to see if he's black or white.
B. Ask him to pretty please put down the gun.
C. make certain he's the one who did the shooting.
D. Shoot his ass and ask questions later.


Choose quickly, as he's as likely to shoot you or someone else as he is to do anything else.

Well, when everyone has a gun, which is the gun nuts' want, you certainly have to choose something. Might as well be that he is black.

 

[Crovax]

Are you serious? ��

They shot a guy running away believing he had fired the shots only to find out a day later that the actual shooter is still at large. Like I said bumbling morons who clearly need to be better trained at how and when to use deadly force. ( hint it’s not when a guy is running away from you)

Here’s a US law tip for you, if you and your buddy are committing a crime together and your buddy kills someone in most jurisdictions you are legally culpable for murder. So the police got the right guy but they just didn’t get the shooter

 

[calamity]

Here’s a US law tip for you, if you and your buddy are committing a crime together and your buddy kills someone in most jurisdictions you are legally culpable for murder. So the police got the right guy but they just didn’t get the shooter

Do you have proof that this dead guy is a friend of the actual shooter? If so, please post a link.

 

[calamity]

Black 12-year old kid with a toy gun shot dead by cop in open carry state.

Black security guard holding a shooter at gun point shot dead by cop.

Black male, armed with gun, running after shooter in mall shooting shot dead by cop.

Notice the pattern? Hear the NRA crickets? See our usual gun supporters refuse to defend the dead blacks?

Lol...one even said “they got the right guy.”

 

[pinqy]

Black 12-year old kid with a toy gun shot dead by cop in open carry state.

Black security guard holding a shooter at gun point shot dead by cop.

Black male, armed with gun, running after shooter in mall shooting shot dead by cop.

Notice the pattern? Hear the NRA crickets? See our usual gun supporters refuse to defend the dead blacks?

Lol...one even said “they got the right guy.”

No, I don’t see a pattern. 3 cherry picked incidents do not constitute a pattern.
What would be needed would be a complete list of mistaken police shootings, and then compare similar incidents by race, and see if we can isolate race as a factor.

Right now you have a prejudiced conclusion without support.

Edit for clarification. Yes of course some of, most of, mistaken shootings of Blacks could be due to bias, conscious or unconscious, and I’m quite sure a number are. But that does not mean all are, nor that there is a pattern.

 

[Mr Person]

You didn't read the article, did you?

The guy who was killed was involved in the shooting and was armed with a handgun in that crowded mall. I would hardly call him a good guy.

Obviously you didn’t read the article, he may have been involved with the confrontation but was not responsible for the rounds fired. Hence the statement from the police that the shooter is at large.

Note how they carefully put it.

First, they only say he "may" have been involved. Meaning they haven't a clue and are basically in "oh ****" ode.

Second, "involved with the confrontation" (I saw the statement as "alercation" elsewhere) doesn't say which side of it he "may" have been involved with or even hint at the way in which he "may" have been involved- the way they phrase it does not rule out the possibility that he was involved in the sense of trying to stop the shooter, or that he was just running away, or that he was hiding and they assumed he was the shooter for no good reason. Or anything, really. They're keeping it deliberately vague.

But they still took care to word it to try to imply as much guilt as possible, so persons such as the one you replied to will assume guilt, which is exactly what he did.







https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...t-have-shot-wrong-man/?utm_term=.4770a08ad4d6

In the evening, police released an extraordinary statement: “We regret that our initial media release was not totally accurate, but new evidence indicates that it was not,” it reads. The statement said, “New evidence now suggests that while Mr. Bradford may have been involved in some aspect of the altercation, he likely did not fire the rounds that injured the 18-year-old victim. This information indicates that there is at least one gunman still at-large.”
.
.
.
“While moving toward the shooting scene, one of the officers encountered a suspect brandishing a pistol and shot him,” police wrote in their first public statement, immediately after the shooting. In their revised statement the following evening, they said Bradford was fatally shot while “fleeing the shooting scene while brandishing a handgun.” In videos taken outside the shoe store, shoppers watch in astonishment. “That boy didn’t shoot at nobody. He’s dead!” a man down the corridor says, as officers stand over Bradford and pin someone else to the ground. “They just killed that black boy for no reason. . . . He probably got a gun license and everything.”





At any rate, it certainly is interesting to see how the people who are ravingly pro-2nd Amd. are conspicuously absent from these threads. I do hope they realize that if they ever try to stop a bad guy with a gun using their own, they're liable to be shot by any officer who happens to arrive on scene before they have a chance to slowly put down their weapon and surrender - especially so if their attention is focused on the bad guy, not on every other single person in the vicinity.

And of course, non-gun-owners like myself still have to worry that maybe if we've got a phone out to let our spouse know they're OK, an arriving cop will see a glint of metal and shoot us dead thinking its a gun (or in reality, having simply reacted without thought, then trying to retroactively justify it by pointing to something that supposedly made them afraid).

 

[Mr Person]

So, you're a cop. You respond to shots fired in a crowded mall and a gunshot victim. You see an armed man running through the mall, and confront him. Next you:

A. Check to see if he's black or white.
B. Ask him to pretty please put down the gun.
C. make certain he's the one who did the shooting.
D. Shoot his ass and ask questions later.


Choose quickly, as he's as likely to shoot you or someone else as he is to do anything else.

I find it interesting how ex-military people who become cops seem to be a whole lot better at not shooting non-threats dead, like that ex-military cop who was fired for not having shot someone who was trying to commit suicide by cop.

Something tells me the difference is in the training, not in the actual danger of the situations faced by each.



I don't buy into the huge latitude some would give cops when they claim they're afraid for their life, especially when they signed up to be afraid for their life. Seems that they mainly just shoot anyone who seems to have a shiny object in their hands. There are far too many "oops but I was scared" situations lately.

 

[calamity]

Note how they carefully put it.

First, they only say he "may" have been involved. Meaning they haven't a clue and are basically in "oh ****" ode.

Second, "involved with the confrontation" (I saw the statement as "alercation" elsewhere) doesn't say which side of it he "may" have been involved with or even hint at the way in which he "may" have been involved- the way they phrase it does not rule out the possibility that he was involved in the sense of trying to stop the shooter, or that he was just running away, or that he was hiding and they assumed he was the shooter for no good reason. Or anything, really. They're keeping it deliberately vague.

But they still took care to word it to try to imply as much guilt as possible, so persons such as the one you replied to will assume guilt, which is exactly what he did.

....

The bold does tell the story. Mycroft is not the only one here who still assumes the black guy has to be guilty of SOMETHING.

 

[calamity]

No, I don’t see a pattern...

Of course you don't. :roll:

 

[VanceMack]

Well the thread title was meant to be ironic, it was a retort to the ridiculous “ good guy with a gun” argument.

However all that being said I trust an Alabama police force as far as I can throw them. Yesterday he was the shooter and today he was “ involved” but not the shooter. Sounds like they are covering their tracks to me.

So you think the good guy with a gun argument is ridiculous...which means you would rather see armed shooters go unchecked for an indeterminate period of time until they decide on their own to stop killing people? You find THAT scenario preferable to an armed citizen stopping engaging a shooter and stopping him...something that has happened numerous times this year including school shootings in Maryland and Indiana, restaurant shootings in Oklahoma, etc? And since you obviously dont trust the police and think citizens shouldnt be protecting themselves...that leaves a pretty exciting target rich environment for bad guys, doesnt it?

 

[pinqy]

Of course you don't. :roll:

And if you had even a basic understanding of statistics and no bias you wouldn’t see a pattern either.
But you have a bias, and do not seem interested in objective analysis.

 

[mike2810]

Well the thread title was meant to be ironic, it was a retort to the ridiculous “ good guy with a gun” argument.

However all that being said I trust an Alabama police force as far as I can throw them. Yesterday he was the shooter and today he was “ involved” but not the shooter. Sounds like they are covering their tracks to me.

This brings up the issue with "immediate" reporting. The error the police made was making any statement other than the event is under investigation." That would not sit well with the media or the public who want instant reporting. Facts don't matter. Tell us who, what , where, when and why right now. Doesn't matter if the incident is still occurring or just occurred. If the "story" changes, then the govt. must be covering something up.

Put yourself in law enforcement shoes. How would you handle the situation of an active shooting incident and you see a person with a gun?

What action did the person that the LE shot take?
Seems to me the rational thing to do, knowing it is an active shooting, when seeing law enforcement is to put the gun down, yell out and state I am not the shooter. Running away from law enforcement, or moving in any threatening towards them or any civilian most likely will not end well for that person.

 

[Mycroft]

The bold does tell the story. Mycroft is not the only one here who still assumes the black guy has to be guilty of SOMETHING.

I didn't say the victim was "guilty of SOMETHING". I said he was not a good guy with a gun.

Frankly, with the little factual information that has been released, I'd say this about the victim:

1. He was involved, in some way, with a shooting in a crowded mall.

2. He was armed and he had his weapon in hand.

3. He was fleeing.

4. He presumably did not follow the instructions of the officer.

Add all those together and we have a portrait of someone who is NOT a "good guy with a gun".

 

[SkyFox76]

Re: Proof that More Guns are not the Answer

You know it’s funny how everyone can play the human error card but, when you are a law enforcement you are the bad guy, a racist cop, a scumbag, and etc. you know what? When are you going to put yourself in that situation? I bet most of you guys would make the same choice and some would second guess yourself.

I don't consider the police any of the things you've mentioned, but I do wonder how a cop is supposed to magically know who the bad guy is if he comes into a situation like this? Does he just shoot whoever is armed and sort out the details later on? I'm assuming this guy had the advantage of wearing clothing that identified him as security. Anybody else in there would simply be a civilian brandishing a weapon. The exact type of person he's looking for after hearing there is an active shooter.

 

[SkyFox76]

I don't know about you, but if I'm a cop responding to an active shooter incident, anyone with a drawn gun is a legitimate target.

Exactly.

I see this dead guy was involved in the altercation but we certainly know eye witnesses can miss a lot of details. Maybe he was involved in trying to break up the altercation. The shooter pulls his weapon, shoots the teen, also hits an innocent bystander and takes off running. Soon to be dead man (thinking he's the good guy with a gun) draws his weapon to chase down the shooter and gets plugged by the security. Not the cops fault because anyone armed was the bad guy as far as he was concerned.

 

[SkyFox76]

This brings up the issue with "immediate" reporting. The error the police made was making any statement other than the event is under investigation." That would not sit well with the media or the public who want instant reporting. Facts don't matter. Tell us who, what , where, when and why right now. Doesn't matter if the incident is still occurring or just occurred. If the "story" changes, then the govt. must be covering something up.

Put yourself in law enforcement shoes. How would you handle the situation of an active shooting incident and you see a person with a gun?

What action did the person that the LE shot take?
Seems to me the rational thing to do, knowing it is an active shooting, when seeing law enforcement is to put the gun down, yell out and state I am not the shooter. Running away from law enforcement, or moving in any threatening towards them or any civilian most likely will not end well for that person.

Assuming a person would see law enforcement. If I'm armed and chasing someone who just shot two people, that is where my focus is. If I turn and see an officer, sure I can attempt to do those things assuming that when he saw me as an armed person turn towards him, I'm not already dead.

 

[Cordelier]

Exactly.

I see this dead guy was involved in the altercation but we certainly know eye witnesses can miss a lot of details. Maybe he was involved in trying to break up the altercation. The shooter pulls his weapon, shoots the teen, also hits an innocent bystander and takes off running. Soon to be dead man (thinking he's the good guy with a gun) draws his weapon to chase down the shooter and gets plugged by the security. Not the cops fault because anyone armed was the bad guy as far as he was concerned.

This is exactly why armed bystanders are so dangerous both to themselves and everyone around them. Everybody thinks they're going to be John Wayne and save the day if they find themselves in a shooting incident. Except for rare circumstances, it just doesn't work that way. The shooter is always going to have the element of surprise. They're the one who chooses when and where the shooting starts. Odds are, they've done the planning and preparation, and they'll have the firepower advantage. Put all of that together, and the odds against an armed bystander are pretty much insurmountable. They have to go from 0-100 in the blink of an eye and still be able to respond effectively without increasing the danger to themselves and the panic-stricken people around them. Given all of those facts, I think the odds are far greater for a bystander to physically tackle an armed shooter (presumably while he/she is reloading) than to actually gun one down.

 

[calamity]

Maybe I've been watching too much Netflix this weekend, but I've been thinking that the NRA is our version of narcos -- you know, a corrupt industry that profits from killing people and which politicians are OK with as long as they get their cut.

https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1066696586149969920

Let's not forget that the NRA is also a good ole boy racist clique, as is evidenced by them never defending innocent armed black men killed by cops.

 

[calamity]

And if you had even a basic understanding of statistics and no bias you wouldn’t see a pattern either.
But you have a bias, and do not seem interested in objective analysis.

I see innocent armed black men being shot by cops, and a good number of the gun rights people here support the cops.

 

[calamity]

You know what it the worst thing here? Racism allowed a murderer to escape.

"We shot us a N-word. Quick, call the media and say we got our man."

And, a good number of the posters here still believe that they did. :roll:

 

[Cordelier]

You know what it the worst thing here? Racism allowed a murderer to escape.

"We shot us a N-word. Quick, call the media and say we got our man."

And, a good number of the posters here still believe that they did. :roll:

Calamity - I agree with you that there are plenty of racial incidents of cops shooting unarmed black men (and children) and that they deservedly need to be condemned. I don't think this incident qualifies, though.

 

[pinqy]

I see innocent armed black men being shot by cops, and a good number of the gun rights people here support the cops.

For the OP I would support the cops if it was a white guy shot. I’m not so sure you would have your same stance though.
Cops make mistakes. Sometimes deadly ones. Sometimes the mistakes are due to racial bias. Sometimes racial bias does have a cop use more force than he would otherwise. But that does NOT mean that every case of a cop shooting the wrong person where the victim is Black is due to racism.

For the OP, i don’t see how it could be concluded that race was an issue. I think it’s ludicrous to say that the cop would have taken no action against a white man fleeing a shooting holding a gun.

 

[justabubba]

Exactly.

I see this dead guy was involved in the altercation but we certainly know eye witnesses can miss a lot of details. Maybe he was involved in trying to break up the altercation. The shooter pulls his weapon, shoots the teen, also hits an innocent bystander and takes off running. Soon to be dead man (thinking he's the good guy with a gun) draws his weapon to chase down the shooter and gets plugged by the security. Not the cops fault because anyone armed was the bad guy as far as he was concerned.

certainly disarms the adage 'a good guy with a gun is the answer to a bad guy with a gun'