Officer shot man mistaken for mall gunman three times from behind, family attorney says

[TU Curmudgeon]

From CBS News

Officer shot man mistaken for mall gunman three times from behind, family attorney says
​

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- A man killed by an officer who mistook him for a gunman at an Alabama mall was shot three times from behind, according to a review conducted by a forensic pathologist at the request of the slain man's family.

Police were responding to reports of a shooting Thanksgiving night at the Riverchase Galleria in Hoover, a suburb of 95,000 people south of Birmingham, when an officer fatally shot 21-year-old Emantic "EJ" Bradford Jr. Police initially blamed Bradford, who they said had a gun in his hand and was responsible for shooting two people at the mall.

They later retracted that statement and identified Erron Brown, 20, of Bessemer, as the gunman. Brown was arrested by U.S. Marshals in the Atlanta area Thursday.

National civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing Bradford's family, released the findings of the independent review during a press conference Monday at The Rock, the church Bradford attended in north Birmingham. The Rev. Jesse Jackson also attended.

Crump said the findings indicate Bradford was shot three times, all from behind — once in the back of the head, once in the back of the neck and once in the lower right back, near his hip. He said those findings were significant because they indicated Bradford was moving away from officers at the time he was shot.

COMMENT:-

Maybe he was shot from behind, maybe he wasn't. I have spoken with the officer involved and he has denied it. I find his denial compelling. Besides, those so-called "findings" came from an anonymous source, so how do we actually know what they found or even if they are qualified to find anything.
​

 

[SLC]

I'll wait for more information before making comment. This may be absolutely true are it may be a Michael Brown situation.

 

[Atomic Kid]

I'll wait for more information before making comment. This may be absolutely true are it may be a Michael Brown situation.

There's no way this is going to be a Michael Brown situation. This young man was trying to help people. This was the classic hero with a legal gun scenario trying to protect the innocent people from the bad people scenario the gun people love to talk about. Problem was that he was the wrong color hero.

 

[SLC]

There's no way this is going to be a Michael Brown situation. This young man was trying to help people. This was the classic hero with a legal gun scenario trying to protect the innocent people from the bad people scenario the gun people love to talk about. Problem was that he was the wrong color hero.

I'm talking about those that said Brown was shot in the back when he was not. I do not doubt this young man was a legal gun owner that was shot and killed by the police. A couple of years ago the Fort Worth police shot and killed a 72 year old white man that walked outside of his garage with handgun to investigate a suspicious sound. So some times the police shoot way to soon.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fort+worth+shoot+innocent+man+outside+his+own+home&view=detail&mid=D2F1A21B36EABFC21713D2F1A21B36EABFC21713&FORM=VIRE

 

[HK.227]

Maybe he was shot from behind, maybe he wasn't. I have spoken with the officer involved and he has denied it. I find his denial compelling. Besides, those so-called "findings" came from an anonymous source, so how do we actually know what they found or even if they are qualified to find anything.

Let's see what forensics discover.
If the cop opened fire, without making any effort to discover if the young man was indeed the shooter or his life being directly threatened, he should spend the next couple of decades in jail.
If so, what he did was no more acceptable than if the shooter had been identified as a 50 year old male, and he immediately opened fire on the first person he met who fit that description.

Then again, as you say, it might be another Michael Brown type scenario, so let's save the torches and pitchforks for when we have some more information.

 

[buck]

There's no way this is going to be a Michael Brown situation. This young man was trying to help people. This was the classic hero with a legal gun scenario trying to protect the innocent people from the bad people scenario the gun people love to talk about. Problem was that he was the wrong color hero.

I've heard many anti-2a individuals use the argument that a hero with a gun may be shot by a cop in the confusion of the situation. It happened. What did the color of his skin have to do with it?

 

[Hatuey]

... have they looked into his legal history yet? Maybe look for that one time he got kicked out of school for a fight? Do we know if he smoked weed in his spare time? Come on people, we need something to use against this guy or the NRA will have nothing to say.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I've heard many anti-2a individuals use the argument that a hero with a gun may be shot by a cop in the confusion of the situation. It happened. What did the color of his skin have to do with it?

That isn't quite the argument and it isn't made by JUST "ANTI-Gun Nuts".

The argument is that the "A Good Man With A Gun Will Eliminate Mass Killings" simply isn't true and, in fact might well exacerbate the situation.

In this situation, the actual shooter had left and the casualty count had stopped increasing - until the "Good Man With A Gun" got added to it.

However, this situation also calls into question whether there were others out there who were carrying guns and DID NOT step up to "eliminate a potential mass killing" (because they didn't want to get involved), and that calls into question the very foundation of the argument.

PS - Because my position (in part) is that only those people who can safely and effectively use guns should have them (which is also my position on power saws, automobiles, Scotch Bonnet peppers, and nuclear weapons) I frequently get confused with an "ANTI-Gun Nut". Mind you, because my position (in part) is that "banning guns" is something that is [1] unworkable, [2] stupid, [3] unaffordable to enforce, [4] stupid, [5] not addressing the actual problem, and [6] stupid I frequently get confused with a "PRO-Gun Nut".

 

[JoanDavis]

From CBS News

Officer shot man mistaken for mall gunman three times from behind, family attorney says
​

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- A man killed by an officer who mistook him for a gunman at an Alabama mall was shot three times from behind, according to a review conducted by a forensic pathologist at the request of the slain man's family.

Police were responding to reports of a shooting Thanksgiving night at the Riverchase Galleria in Hoover, a suburb of 95,000 people south of Birmingham, when an officer fatally shot 21-year-old Emantic "EJ" Bradford Jr. Police initially blamed Bradford, who they said had a gun in his hand and was responsible for shooting two people at the mall.

They later retracted that statement and identified Erron Brown, 20, of Bessemer, as the gunman. Brown was arrested by U.S. Marshals in the Atlanta area Thursday.

National civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing Bradford's family, released the findings of the independent review during a press conference Monday at The Rock, the church Bradford attended in north Birmingham. The Rev. Jesse Jackson also attended.

Crump said the findings indicate Bradford was shot three times, all from behind — once in the back of the head, once in the back of the neck and once in the lower right back, near his hip. He said those findings were significant because they indicated Bradford was moving away from officers at the time he was shot.

COMMENT:-

Maybe he was shot from behind, maybe he wasn't. I have spoken with the officer involved and he has denied it. I find his denial compelling. Besides, those so-called "findings" came from an anonymous source, so how do we actually know what they found or even if they are qualified to find anything.
​

Oh please. The cops made an innocent mistake. Look at the 2 men. How could the police know Emantic Bradford Jr wasn't the gunman? He is black after all.

If only he looked more like Dylan Roof.

 

[JoanDavis]

I'm talking about those that said Brown was shot in the back when he was not. I do not doubt this young man was a legal gun owner that was shot and killed by the police. A couple of years ago the Fort Worth police shot and killed a 72 year old white man that walked outside of his garage with handgun to investigate a suspicious sound. So some times the police shoot way to soon.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fort+worth+shoot+innocent+man+outside+his+own+home&view=detail&mid=D2F1A21B36EABFC21713D2F1A21B36EABFC21713&FORM=VIRE

Multiple news sources have reported that Emantic was shot three times IN THE BACK. But since you say he was not, I choose to believe you.....NOT.

Here's a link - and there are many more. Just google 'Emantic Bradford Jr".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46434717

 

[JoanDavis]

From CBS News

Officer shot man mistaken for mall gunman three times from behind, family attorney says
​

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- A man killed by an officer who mistook him for a gunman at an Alabama mall was shot three times from behind, according to a review conducted by a forensic pathologist at the request of the slain man's family.

Police were responding to reports of a shooting Thanksgiving night at the Riverchase Galleria in Hoover, a suburb of 95,000 people south of Birmingham, when an officer fatally shot 21-year-old Emantic "EJ" Bradford Jr. Police initially blamed Bradford, who they said had a gun in his hand and was responsible for shooting two people at the mall.

They later retracted that statement and identified Erron Brown, 20, of Bessemer, as the gunman. Brown was arrested by U.S. Marshals in the Atlanta area Thursday.

National civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing Bradford's family, released the findings of the independent review during a press conference Monday at The Rock, the church Bradford attended in north Birmingham. The Rev. Jesse Jackson also attended.

Crump said the findings indicate Bradford was shot three times, all from behind — once in the back of the head, once in the back of the neck and once in the lower right back, near his hip. He said those findings were significant because they indicated Bradford was moving away from officers at the time he was shot.

COMMENT:-

Maybe he was shot from behind, maybe he wasn't. I have spoken with the officer involved and he has denied it. I find his denial compelling. Besides, those so-called "findings" came from an anonymous source, so how do we actually know what they found or even if they are qualified to find anything.
​

I googled Emantic Bradford Jr and all the news sources all mention he was shot three times in the BACK. If this is incorrect - as many conservatives here are claiming - then a LOT of newspapers and sites are gonna be doing a lot of apologising and probably paying out millions in compensation to the police officers who might have been defamed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46434717

 

[JoanDavis]

... have they looked into his legal history yet? Maybe look for that one time he got kicked out of school for a fight? Do we know if he smoked weed in his spare time? Come on people, we need something to use against this guy or the NRA will have nothing to say.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

Good point. Emantic Bradford Jr might have been a hardened criminal and the police officer was right to shoot him three times in the back. Now what sort of crimes might he have committed? Smoked weed? Shoplifted? Littered? Parked illegally?

Now I just wait to see how Faux News will spin it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Oh please. The cops made an innocent mistake.

STANDARD FORM OFFICIAL STATEMENT (Duplication permitted)

In accordance with the standard practices of the _________________ Police Department and in compliance with established procedures of the _________________ Police Department, at _______ on _____ the _____ day of ______, 20__, Officer _____ was dispatched to ___________ in response to a call reporting that _________________ was in progress.

Upon arrival at __________________, Officer __________, in accordance with the standard practices of the _________________ Police Department and in compliance with established procedures of the _________________ Police Department, proceeded to the reported scene of the reported ______________________.

Upon arrival at the scene of the reported __________________, Officer _________________, accordance with the standard practices of the _________________ Police Department and in compliance with established procedures of the _________________ Police Department, assessed the situation and observed an armed person who appeared to match the description of the reported perpetrator of the reported ________________.

Upon observing and assessing the actions of the person who matched the description of the reported perpetrator of the reported _______________, Officer _________ determined that he had a well founded fear that that the person observed would cause death or bodily harm either to Officer ____________, other police officers, or other people in the area.

At that point, accordance with the standard practices of the _________________ Police Department and in compliance with the established procedures of the ______________ Police Department, Officer ______________ took what he honestly believed were the requisite steps to mitigate the threat of death or bodily harm to himself, other police officers, or other people in the area.

The _____________________ Police Department regrets the inconvenience which Officer _________________'s actions has caused to the family of _____________________ and will be sending an appropriate floral tribute to ____________________'s funeral.

Additionally, the ______________________ Police Department will, at a 10% discount from its usual charges, be supplying the family of ______________________, with a suitable motorcycle escort for the funeral procession.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Multiple news sources have reported that Emantic was shot three times IN THE BACK. But since you say he was not, I choose to believe you.....NOT.

What you have to remember is that all of those so-called "news sources" all base their so-called "reports" on the statement of ONE PERSON who wasn't there when it happened and that ONE PERSON bases his statements on an UNNAMED SOURCE.

Obviously this so-called "announcement" is not to be given the slightest bit of credibility.

Right?

 

[buck]

The argument is that the "A Good Man With A Gun Will Eliminate Mass Killings" simply isn't true and, in fact might well exacerbate the situation.

I didn't mean to argue against the statement, because it is clearly true. Cops responding to a shooting, won't know if the good guy with the gun is good. I was simply pointing out this happens and (even according to those that are anti-2A) know it is possible/likely. It should be a known risk for any "good guy with a gun".

Regardless, if I am ever in that situation, I would rather be armed and assume that risk then unarmed.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I didn't mean to argue against the statement, because it is clearly true. Cops responding to a shooting, won't know if the good guy with the gun is good. I was simply pointing out this happens and (even according to those that are anti-2A) know it is possible/likely. It should be a known risk for any "good guy with a gun".

Regardless, if I am ever in that situation, I would rather be armed and assume that risk then unarmed.

I go along with your final point.

On the other hand, I can also envision a situation where there is MORE than one "Good Guy With A Gun" and that those people end up shooting at each other simply because they really don't know what they are doing in a "combat situation".

Would I be the FIRST to respond by shooting, I like to think that I would.

Would I be the SECOND to respond by shooting, I rather think that I'd keep my head down until the situation cleared up a bit.

 

[buck]

On the other hand, I can also envision a situation where there is MORE than one "Good Guy With A Gun" and that those people end up shooting at each other simply because they really don't know what they are doing in a "combat situation".

It wouldn't surprise me if that has happened. The only situation I can think of at all similar, though, is one that worked out well:

As the gunman ran from the scene, two bystanders got their own handguns from the trunks of their vehicles, then confronted and fatally shot the attacker outside the restaurant, Mathews said Friday.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/us/oklahoma-city-shooting/index.html

 

[Ikari]

From CBS News

Officer shot man mistaken for mall gunman three times from behind, family attorney says
​

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- A man killed by an officer who mistook him for a gunman at an Alabama mall was shot three times from behind, according to a review conducted by a forensic pathologist at the request of the slain man's family.

Police were responding to reports of a shooting Thanksgiving night at the Riverchase Galleria in Hoover, a suburb of 95,000 people south of Birmingham, when an officer fatally shot 21-year-old Emantic "EJ" Bradford Jr. Police initially blamed Bradford, who they said had a gun in his hand and was responsible for shooting two people at the mall.

They later retracted that statement and identified Erron Brown, 20, of Bessemer, as the gunman. Brown was arrested by U.S. Marshals in the Atlanta area Thursday.

National civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing Bradford's family, released the findings of the independent review during a press conference Monday at The Rock, the church Bradford attended in north Birmingham. The Rev. Jesse Jackson also attended.

Crump said the findings indicate Bradford was shot three times, all from behind — once in the back of the head, once in the back of the neck and once in the lower right back, near his hip. He said those findings were significant because they indicated Bradford was moving away from officers at the time he was shot.

COMMENT:-

Maybe he was shot from behind, maybe he wasn't. I have spoken with the officer involved and he has denied it. I find his denial compelling. Besides, those so-called "findings" came from an anonymous source, so how do we actually know what they found or even if they are qualified to find anything.
​

We'll see what info comes out in the future. However, they obviously did not take the necessary steps to properly assess the situation.

I think we need to spend some resources and develope better, more reliable non-lethal weapons for police to use as first response.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We'll see what info comes out in the future. However, they obviously did not take the necessary steps to properly assess the situation.

I think we need to spend some resources and develope better, more reliable non-lethal weapons for police to use as first response.

Not to worry, the decision that it's OK for a police officer to shoot and kill a deaf man because the deaf man didn't "comply with the officer's commands" has already been made.