• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/24/us...ing/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/&rm=1


What an absolute joke. How can anyone even question at this point why people are protesting the American police system. This is like the second incident in 10 days where the police have seen a black man and presumed guilt.

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.
 
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.
 
Also since when is being armed in America a crime?
 
Also since when is being armed in America a crime?

While technically not a crime, being armed when the police later respond to an "active shooter" call is likely cause (reason?) to get you shot by police which, in turn, will be 'cleared' by an internal investigation of the "officer involved shooting".
 
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.

As I said...he was involved. Even if he didn't do the actual shooting. That's why I dispute your thread title. The guy who was killed was NOT a "good guy".
 
As I said...he was involved. Even if he didn't do the actual shooting. That's why I dispute your thread title. The guy who was killed was NOT a "good guy".

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.
 
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.

And being involved in the confrontation and running from the scene with a gun in his hand makes him the good guy?
 
And being involved in the confrontation and running from the scene with a gun in his hand makes him the good guy?

Why were the police shooting at someone running away?
 
Why were the police shooting at someone running away?

sigh...

Again...read the article.

An armed Hoover police officer who was working security at the mall then confronted an armed man running away from the scene and fatally shot him, authorities said.

It's not like the officer shot him in the back as he was running away. The armed victim was running away from the scene, was "confronted" by the officer.
 
Also since when is being armed in America a crime?

When you don't have a permit. When your weapon is stolen. When you use it in a confrontation without justification. When you use it in the commission of a crime. When you are in a gun free zone.

I'm not saying any of these apply in this case. Just answering your question. But I'd guess at least one applies.

I didn't see any reference to race. Did I miss something?
 
Why were the police shooting at someone running away?

Nothing in my post is addressed by your post.

I simply said those are not the actions of a :good guy".
 
sigh...

Again...read the article.



It's not like the officer shot him in the back as he was running away. The armed victim was running away from the scene, was "confronted" by the officer.


So my question “ why are the police shooting people who are running away” still stands. Also this is all from the statement of a police officer who has now been placed on administrative leave after shooting the wrong suspect.
 
Also since when is being armed in America a crime?

Being armed is not a crime (unless you’re a felon or otherwise restricted legally from possessing a firearm), although being armed while committing a crime is an additional crime.
 
So my question “ why are the police shooting people who are running away” still stands. Also this is all from the statement of a police officer who has now been placed on administrative leave after shooting the wrong suspect.

He didn't shoot the wrong suspect. He shot one of the suspects.
 
You probably should have read you own article, " Bradford was involved in "some aspect of the altercation"

Certainly not the "good guy" you have claimed


The thread title was ironic...i also called the police good guys.

Anything to distract you guys from the fact your police forces are bumbling morons with a quick trigger around black people.
 
He didn't shoot the wrong suspect. He shot one of the suspects.

Gunmen is still at large, yesterday they said they killed the gunmen....so they got the wrong guy.
 
So my question “ why are the police shooting people who are running away” still stands. Also this is all from the statement of a police officer who has now been placed on administrative leave after shooting the wrong suspect.

Hmm... why is shooting any "suspect" not wrong and grounds for immediate arrest? I have no problem with anyone (officer or civilian) shooting in self defense, or to save the life of another currently under criminal attack, if that is later determined to have been the case by a jury but the idea that one can be (unilaterally?) declared (by police?) to be "suspect" and simply executed for having been so designated is moronic. The difference between a suspected homicide (or attempted homicide) and an officer involved shooting shouldn't simply be the occupation of the shooter.
 
Hmm... why is shooting any "suspect" not wrong and grounds for immediate arrest? I have no problem with anyone (officer or civilian) shooting in self defense, or to save the life of another currently under criminal attack, if that is later determined to have been the case by a jury but the idea that one can be (unilaterally?) declared (by police?) to be "suspect" and simply executed for having been so designated is moronic. The difference between a suspected homicide (or attempted homicide) and an officer involved shooting shouldn't simply be the occupation of the shooter.


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.
 
When you don't have a permit. When your weapon is stolen. When you use it in a confrontation without justification. When you use it in the commission of a crime. When you are in a gun free zone.

I'm not saying any of these apply in this case. Just answering your question. But I'd guess at least one applies.

I didn't see any reference to race. Did I miss something?

So best to shoot an armed man and ask those questions later, right? Not like we have a second amendment right to bear arms or anything. Have gun, get shot by police.

That man could have been chasing the shooter, could have been just in the area, heard the shots and came running saw a cop, realized oh ****, they think it's me now. And then ran for his life.

All plausible. Only way to verify is not be a ***** cop who shoots first and asks questions later.
 
Back
Top Bottom